It's time to stop bashing Democrats over the head about Bush's crime

[ProSense]

Democrats weighed the evidence given to them and acted accordingly. There were only five Democratic Senators (one Independent) who voted consistently---against the authorization and the funding. Why? I can't answer that. My feeling is that if a Democrat was in the WH and an important decision like this had to be made, I wouldn't want Republicans hamstringing the president based on political motives. I'd want them to stick to the evidence. If they're voting on instinct, that's cool. But I can't fault someone for voting based on the evidence at hand. Some people are against any war. That's cool.

H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)*
Byrd (D-WV)*
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)*
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)*
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)*
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)*
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Measure Number: S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 )
Measure Title: An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

NAYs ---12
Boxer (D-CA)*
Byrd (D-WV)*
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)*
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)*
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)*
Sarbanes (D-MD)*


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400

*Voted nay on both


Iraq is Bush's crime. He should be tried for falsifying the evidence.

[MojoXN]

1. Robert C. Byrd, thank you.

Though your efforts may have been ultimately futile, thank you for attempting to prevent Bush's catastrophe in Iraq.

MojoXN

[bryant69]

2. Sort of agree, sort of disagree

I think we need to hold them accountable for what they have done; but i think we also need to give them the opportunity to make it up to us.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProSense]

5. That goes against what's stated in the OP.

You want to hold them accountable for voting based on the evidence? That's what they did, nothing more.

[bryant69]

8. That's why I said I sort of agree sort of disagree

There are people who would basically say that our elected representatives are useless because of that vote; they don't hold open any opportunity of forgiveness, and that's just as bad.

Bryant

[MercutioATC]

18. I disagree with the premise of the OP.

They voted to give Bush Congressional approval to use force.

They knew Bush was a Republican who'd surrounded himself with some very hawkish advisors.

They knew that at least some of these advisors either subscribed to or helped create PNAC.

That leaves only two possibilities in my mind:

1) They were abysmally stupid. They "trusted" Bush to do the right thing despite all they knew about him.

2) They were political opportunists. They knew that the public demanded action and believed that their careers would suffer if they didn't vote for a war.

Neither possibility is O.K. with me.

[ProSense]

23. What does knowing that Bush is a Republican have to do with

the evidence? Are you saying that each member of Congress should vote without weighing the evidence and based on party affiliation only?

[MercutioATC]

54. How the hell did you get that from my post?

My argument is that they DIDN'T consider all of the factors.

If you KNEW that I had a history of antisocial behavior and you KNEW that I had agenda in the Middle East, would you give me a blank check to start a war?

[ProSense]

55. There is nothing in your statements:

about weighing all the factors:

They knew Bush was a Republican who'd surrounded himself with some very hawkish advisors.

They knew that at least some of these advisors either subscribed to or helped create PNAC.


It is a mis-characterization to say that authorization was a blank check.

[MercutioATC]

56. I disagree.

You stated that I had suggested that party affiliation was the only issue which, through the quote you so thoughtfully provided, obviously isn't true.

Being a mamber of the opposition party PLUS the character of his closest advisors PLUS the fact that many of them have close ties to PNAC are the "factors" that should have been weighed (as I stated).

The authorization WAS a blank check. Show me ONE way in which it made the support contingent on ANYTHING.

[still_one]

6. They MUST admit their vote was a mistake

ideally the reason they should give is because they were LIED to by this administration, and they must have a solution. That is the only way they can make it up to us

[emulatorloo]

3. two relevant threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5340848

Bush Pulls Security Clearances of 92 senators 10/01

--------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1920726

Inaccuracies in Bush's defense of lead-up to war (Congress had less info)

[ProSense]

12. Thanks! n/t

[still_one]

4. Here is the problem

1. They must come out point blank and say they were misled, and if they knew THEN what they know NOW they would have voted against it

2. They must come up with an exit strategy for Iraq, one that is not "stay the course"

For the most part the democrats are silent, though Edwards and a few others have coming out and said their vote was a mistake, they much come out extremely hard and throw the blame entirely with the bush administration

If they do NOT act on those two issues, then there really is very little difference between the democrats and the repukes in regard to Iraq

[Noisy Democrat]

16. Kerry has done Points 1 and 2

On October 26th, he said he wouldn't have voted for the IWR if he'd known how much Bush was lying (he used the term "duplicity," as I recall, rather than "lie"), and then laid out his plan for starting to get our troops out of Iraq.

Kerry's proposal for a new course in Iraq was introduced as legislation in the Senate on Thursday, so now it needs to be considered in committee. McCain blasted Kerry for it and proposed his own plan, involving *adding* troops rather than starting to withdraw.

[still_one]

25. That is good

it is of course too bad that he didn't say that during the campaign when asked at the Grand Canyon, Knowing what you know now would you have still voted for the IWR?

He replied yes

Still it is good, and all the Democrats should unify under this, and have a plan

[fed-up]

7. I will never stop bashing. I knew it was lies. Soldiers DIED, are dying &

from 30-50 thousand are injured, not to mention how many will have lifelong psychological effects from the failure of those dems not to do their homework!!

Let's not forget the 30-100,000 dead Iraqi's either. ALL DEAD because of our legislators failure to DO THEIR JOB!! Or the cost to US taxpayers to clean up the mess, and the humongous debt that we have saddled our youth with, or the massive cuts to programs here at home as $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ goes to the War and Bush's buddies (and Feinstein's hubby).

War is a LAST RESORT and they should have had NO DOUBTS about signing on.

Since when does ANY Democrat TRUST what a REPUKE tells them????

That they were fed false intelligence is a COPOUT.

They are paid to do their homework, not only that but they have many paid aids to do research for them. Feinstein alone was sent over 40,000 emails debunking Bush's lies. If I found the LIES why couldn't they???

I WILL NEVER FORGET and neither will most family members of those killed or injured in this tragedy of errors.

[ProSense]

9. You knew ?

You had the information that proved the evidence had been manipulated? Why didn't you come forward?

Thanks for your input. You have a right to do what you think is constructive.

[fed-up]

11. I attneded many protests with hundreds of thousands of others that "knew"

Yes, we wrote and called and pointed out the inacurracies in Bush's claims but the legislators were too concerned with their future elections than they were with our soldiers.

[ProSense]

14. I don't buy that.

Voting for the war was not a means to protect ones seat when the Republicans were in control of the media and much more. Voting to give the president authorization certainly didn't help former Senator Daschle. Senator Clinton, who voted for it wasn't up for reelection for another four years. Voting against it didn't hurt Senator Boxer, who was relected in 2004.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

66. You are pretty new here...

Yes, those of us who where here at DU back during that time KNEW that the intel was being manipulate and much of it was false.

We KNEW.

How did we know? Because an amazing array of DU internet activists made it a point to seek out every bit of information from every source available to find out the truth behind the propaganda.

We found out about the WHIG group, the OSP, the PNAC -- the CIA was leaking like a damn SIEVE over just what bullshit BushCo. was peddling.

The European media, especially the Guardian paper was right on about the bullshit case that was being presented. Within 48 hours of Powell's speech before the UN we had evidence that everything he was claiming was either a flat out lie or in deep dispute within the intel communities.

WE KNEW.

Which is why so many of us have such a hard time with any Democrat who tries to use the "I was hornswaggled" route on the IRW.

WE KNEW.

Why didn't they?

[sendero]

46. Oh that is just..

.... PLAIN SILLY. Why don't you dig in the archives and see what DU was saying about the bogus claims that were being passed out left and right back in 2002? WE KNEW THE NUCLEAR SHIT WAS LIES, WE KNEW ABOUT THE OSP, WE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. If the senators didn't THEY ARE INCOMPETENT AT BEST.

I don't know how far back the archives go, but I was here, I remember quite well thank you, and VERY FEW people here bought the bullshit, and most of us could see completely clearly that BUSH HAD MADE UP HIS MIND TO GO TO WAR AND WAS SIMPLY LINING UP HIS DUCKS, and the stupid senate including most Dems just let him do it.

[itzamirakul]

10. Dems voted "YES" because they were afraid....scared to death...

Let's face it. When 911 happened, the Repubs had our Dem politicians by the short hairs. The American people were scared of the terrorists that had been "dreamed up" by the Republicans who I believe created this "Phantom enemy" named al quaida. The Dem politicians were more scared of their own constituents than they were of these imaginary terrorists. They were "scared" of being called "un-patriotic" by the Repubs, who right after 911 began to dub any questioners as disloyal to America. So the politicians who voted yes did so out of fear. I think there was only one black female politician who voted no on the Patriot Act, if I am not mistaken and I am surprised that she wasn't killed.

If you are interested in a different viewpoint of the reality of al quaida visit this site, which I got from another post at DU:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Y8x8e3MdaTcJ:marc.perkel.com/archives/000753.html+Al+quaeda+concept+organization&hl=en

It sure helped me to see things with something of a different perspective. What we at DU have to do is to start connecting the dots in our own minds without waiting for someone else to do it for us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. When they vote to defund the war, I'll stop "bashing" them.

Until then, I'll look upon them for what they are, self-serving politicians, deserving of scepticism at all times, and opposition when they sell out.

[William769]

15. It's time to look to the future, not the past.

[MercutioATC]

19. If we don't learn from the past, how do we deal with the future?

[NNadir]

17. Note that Frank Lautenberg is not on the first list because he was not in

the Senate.

He was taking a brief vacation while Torrecelli was briefly allowed in the seat without adult supervision.

[mopinko]

20. i bash them for ignoring sen byrd

he laid it out that day. he told them it was a pack of lies, and he also told them that the legislation not only guaranteed that the war mongers would get their war, but that it would eviscerate the constitution. those that ignored him deserve whatever they get.

[longship]

21. Give them the benefit of doubt.

But only if they make good on it. You are correct. Voting for these resolutions is not necessarily a bad thing. The political environment at the time meant that it took a certain level of boldness to vote NO. So I will not hold these votes against anybody... But there must be an epiphany on the Iraq war at some point. It *is* a bad war and the decision to do it *was* flawed. Although I will not fault any Congress Critter for voting for the war, I *will* condemn them if they do not experience that epiphany.

Any Congress Critter who continues to defend their votes on the basis that the war with Iraq was "the right thing" do not deserve to remain in Congress. Note that I do not care when they have this Iraq epiphany as long as they have it. For instance, I will have to reconsider my opinion of Hillary (which is not a good one) if tomorrow she renounced her position that we need to *win* the war.

Defending the war in Iraq is no longer a politically expedient position. We need to make sure that all Congress Critters understand this clearly and unambiguously. A position of staying in Iraq is no longer a tenable one.

[DerekG]

22. Oh, those poor little things

Forty percent of posters would have me believe that those who voted for the IWR were naive Jefferson Smiths, who couldn't believe that the architects of PNAC would present bad evidence on a subject that involves substantive oil reserves.

Sad to say, Kerry ain't Capra-esque. He plumbed the depths of this criminal junta in the Iran Contra investigations. He knows how the empire works, but he chose to be a collaborator. Still, it's nice to know he's turned around (a year after the goddamn election).

Oh, and this is OUR crime, until we convince some of our more unprincipled politicos that they will suffer at the polls if they continue to support this war. Of course, those of us who value principle over party will have to work without the loyalists.

[ProSense]

26. This is a crime, but it's not my crime. And who said naive?

If I'm fighting to correct a wrong, I'm not the criminal. Bush is. Saying they acted accordingly by voting based on the evidence in no way implies naivtivity.

Yeah, I'm a loyal Democrat, but I don't believe that voting based on the evidence is being unprincipled.

[DerekG]

29. You honestly believed the evidence of these barons was valid?

After all you know about the machinations of PNAC, the precarious circumstances surrounding our entry into the first Gulf War, and the history of our involvement in Middle East politics (a coup there, a coup here), you honestly believed that George "Arbusto" Walker Bush wouldn't use the resolution as a Gulf of Tonkin II?

If so, you have my sympathies.

[ProSense]

34. No sympathies needed.

Seems like a lot more people were swaggering about Desert Storm. Yet, 47 Democrats, including Kerry, voted against that one. No one should mis-characterized the 2002 vote as a vote for war. It wasn't.

[DerekG]

39. That's funny: Senator Byrd saw the ramifications

This is what he said during the debate.

“This is a blank check. Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war—handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, ‘Going fishing.’”

[ProSense]

43. Senator Byrd in his own words

Snip:

Who are the American people to believe? What are we to think? Even though I opposed the war against Iraq because I believe that the doctrine of preemption is a flawed and dangerous instrument of foreign policy, I did believe that Saddam Hussein possessed some chemical and biological weapons capability. But I did not believe that he presented an imminent threat to the United States - as indeed he did not.

Such weapons may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq. Shouldn't this Administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities?

Snip:

This nation and, indeed, the world were led into war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat to the United States and to the global community. As the President said in his March 17 address to the nation, "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

That fear may still be valid, but I wonder how the war with Iraq has really mitigated the threat from terrorists. As the recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved, terrorism is alive and well and unaffected by the situation in Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-13.htm

I respect that. I have no resaon to doubt that the other senators voted on anything but what the evidence showed.

Bush lied!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

67. It's looks like...

some "Dems" are out to rewrite history! :eyes:

[Pithy Cherub]

24. The Dems that voted and enabled this travesty are responsible for

their votes. When elected congressional representatives take the oath of office, it is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America. These Democrats took the word of an enfeebled liar before the word of THEIR OWN constitutional and senatorial parliamentarian, Senator Byrd.

These IWR votes were found to be predicated on false testimony and premises. In protecting and defending the constitution there should be cacophony of sound ringing from the Halls of the U.S. Congress for impeachment. The Dems who sadly voted for this need to disavow their votes based on the immorality of this occupation and invasion. It was a moral failure to vote aye on the IWR. There is no walking away from the American & Iraqi war dead by saying they were misled. It cries out for justice to be done in the names of the fallen and for the humanity of the living.

Because others are dysfunctional is no reason for me to enable that horrific vote by simply pretending it did not happen. It is important to first clean up our own House spillage,before casting an eye at our dysfunctional republican neighbors. Enabling bad behavior or political cravenness is what republicans do, not Democrats that will be supported with my time money or support. Functional behavior calls for delineating the wrong and taking the appropriate actions to atone.

[ProSense]

27. The Democrats are not walking away. The moral failure is Bush. n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

28. It was a moral failure of every Dem who voted for it.

No getting aound that.

[ProSense]

30. Moral failure implies they voted that way intentionally.

If that what you believe, I'm not going to try getting around that.

Some believe they were scared. Others believe they should have voted no just because they're Democrats.

I prefer that elected officials vote based on the facts. For example, no matter what Kay Bailey Hutchison says, perjury is a crime.

[Pithy Cherub]

31. Until all the facts are in evidence, juries don't vote.

That is a tenant of American jurisprudence. How many of them have law degrees? Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Bayh, etc., - they wanted to be president more than taking their oaths of office seriously.

They failed the nation by making a judgement prior to having all the facts. Once the facts were known to not support their votes, they abdicated their further responsibilities to gather a remedy for the injured parties. The failure continues...

[ProSense]

36. Juries vote when they believe they have all the evidence.

There are always case where new evidence surfaces after the verdict. Sometimes that new evidence is proof that someone tampered with the original evidence.

[Pithy Cherub]

40. They were told they did not have all of the facts and yet they voted.

Somewhere along the chain of custody, they have to assume responsibility for their actions. Then hold those that manipulated the facts, evidence and testimony to account. That can only happen when humble courageous servants of the people and the constitution take responsibility.

Republicans run away from taking responsibility for anything. Hope nothing is in the water up on there on Capital Hill.

[ProSense]

44. Democrats are assuming responsiblity for their actions and

working to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

[mondo joe]

59. They gave Bush a blank check. They abandoned THEIR responsibility.

I have no intention of harping on it on my own, but I can only see so many of these absurd rationalizations without responding.

[stepnw1f]

35. Prove They Intentionally Went Along with Bush

Can ya?

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Count the *ayes* on IWR, they intentionally went along.

[stepnw1f]

38. No It Isn't (nt)

[ray of light]

32. ProSense, you make a lot of sense!

I agree with your statements completely.

The White House and Bush and Cheney MUST be held accountable for cherry picking the evidence and setting up Congress to vote based upon false facts.

Great posts!

[stepnw1f]

33. I Agree

Prove Dems knew Bush's intent, and I will think otherwise.

[yurbud]

41. Frankly, anyone who voted for the War Resolution should change parties

totally apart from the lies Bush told, they should have had the common sense to know that even if Saddam had a half dozen nukes, he would know it would be suicidal to use them on us, and people sitting on a couple of trillion dollars worth of oil don't often commit suicide.

Therefore, they voted in favor of the war based on agreement with the real geopolitical motives which were NOT shared with the public: giving American companies control of Iraqis oil, and possibly preventing Iraq and Iran from trading oil in euros.

[Noisy Democrat]

47. Why can't leftists make a good living as mind-readers?

From what I see on this board, psychic leftists "know" that the Democrats who voted for the IWR -- including Kerry, who had warned that Saddam was a serious threat since at least 1997 -- were *actually* certain that Saddam was no problem at all, but just voted for the IWR out of cowardice. (I guess all those statements Kerry made in the 1990s about Saddam being a problem were just him planning ahead for the big moment of weakness, eh?)

Now you've demonstrated that with your incredibly psychic skills, you "know" that they *weren't* cowards, but clever colluders in American imperialism. How you ruled out the "cowards" theory that the other psychics advance hasn't been specified yet. Nevertheless, the display of psychic talent on this board is breathtaking. If you all turn your mind-reading abilities to the stock market, I imagine you could make a killing.

[yurbud]

48. not cowardice--complicity. A lot of Dems seem to only quibble with HOW

war is done, not whether it needed to be done.

The primary reason we are worried about nukes (fuck the other stuff, it's irrelevant) is that it limits our options to invade and intimidate.

[LittleClarkie]

50. Oh cool! A Republican super majority

That's one heck of a broad brush statement you just made. That reasoning might be true for some of the Dems who voted aye on the IWR, but I highly doubt it is true for them all.

You are not clarvoiant. You can not claim to know the motive of that many people, regardless of what you think of their actions.

[yurbud]

51. Either they didn't understand defense issues, they bought the real reasons

or they are too stupid to be in office.

Frankly, I think it's the middle option. I don't think stupid and gullible people get elected to the Senate.

[confludemocrat]

42. call it bashing, thats BS; there were always big doubts on WMD existence

when this was authorized, the IWR yes vote meant there was no turning back, Bush and his henchmen had already telegraphed their intentions to anyone paying attention and the Bush record of lying was also well known among Senators, don't kid yourself. Some ran through those red lights based on opportunism or fear.

[Malikshah]

45. It's called an accessory to the crime

And they are just as guilty.

They are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents to the best of their ability. Rubber stamping is not to the best of their ability. Blind adherence was more the order of the day than reasoned research on their own.

Willful ignorance is NEVER an excuse--not for the President, the Congress, or the citizenry.

As a democracy/republic--we ARE MORE culpable for this war, than if we'd been part of a dictatatorship/authoritarian regime.

It's called responsibility and accountability and we should hold everyone's feet to the fire.

The souls of the dead deserve nothing less.

[LittleClarkie]

49. One problem for me with continually bringing up this vote

Well, a couple of things, now that I think about it.

First, we know they voted this way. What is with the continual breast beating about it. What will it take to move on? What will it take for forgiveness?

Second, reading Bush's speech from yesterday, it seems to me that we are helping him make his point. He is trying to thrust blame away from himself, or at least divide it.

Do we really want to agree with Bush and point fingers at the Dems and say "They did it too!"

Nevermind what we thought about Bush's evidence and the gullibility of the Dems who voted for the IWR. How he sold the IWR is what is important. Photographs claiming to show what Saddam was building, for instance. The claim from Bush that war would be a last resort, not the first. The people around Washington who claimed in support of Bush that any path to war would lead though the UN first. The climate that made dissent sound like treason, not just for the Dems in Congress, but anyone who dared open their mouths.

I can understand being disappointed in the Dems. What I can't understand is giving them almost equal blame in the situation. What I can't understand is the constant repetition of "they voted for the war" as if we didn't know about it.

We're not Drew Barrymore, and this is not "50 First Dates". We KNOW, already. No SHIT. Okay, so vote the bastards out or something, but could the tit beating stop now?

Bush's speech yesterday made it clear that he'd love for us to continue to dillute the blame away from himself onto the Dems. Since when did we start agreeing with him?

[Blue_In_AK]

52. BRILLIANT, LittleClarkie

Thank you for saying that so well.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

53. So it's actually kind of pro-war to crit the Dems who voted for the IWR

because it gives comfort to Bush & therefore his war policy.
Interesting.

[MercutioATC]

58. I don't think so. We're demanding from our own party what we demand of

Bush.

Accountability and a review of the real chronology and events preceding the invasion of Iraq. Bush was wrong to start the war. The Dems who voted for the IWR were wrong too. I think it's very important, on many levels, not to gloss that over.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

62. That was my point, (too) ironically.

[The Magistrate]

60. That Is The Effect It Has, Mr. Schwarzenegger

Life can be a funny thing. What is essential in this political situation is to concentrate the blame for what is become an unpopular policy on the single figure of the pissant in the Oval Office. Anything that deflects from this, anything that disperses the blame onto others, works against this, and so assists him in avoiding the full brunt of the people's ire over the disaster he has wrought. As with so much else, it is a question of marketing at bottom: no one in that trade worth their salt would follow a claim their product was great with the voluntary admission several others were just about as, or nearly as, good for the problem, and when working towards denigration and destruction of an image, the same principle applies; the target chosen must be painted as the worst thing conceivable, and nothing but that figure be claimed to be in any way like it....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[A-Schwarzenegger]

63. Thanks, Magistrate, Sir. I respectfully reserve the right

to hold just the tiniest little toepinky of pro-IWR Dems to the fire
as a little friendly reminder in case history
deems to repeat itself
again.

[FreedomAngel82]

57. Exactly

If this was all switched around the democratic president would be blamed and impeached already. :mad: This is just a way to get Bush off the hook and blame everyone else but him. I'm tired of it too!

[Virginian]

61. Kennedy needs a star.

I see his name in both lists.

[ProSense]

64. Big error! You're right. n/t

[MadHound]

65. Sorry, but this isn't an either-or situation

And quite frankly I think that all who voted for the IWR should be held accountable. I also think that Bushco should be held accountable also.

Why should we being playing hands off with the pro-war Dems? Isn't that what primaries are for, to either reward or punish the incumbent for the job that they've done? Well, quite frankly we should hold accountable those who voted for the IWR. If they believed Bushco on this matter, then they are entirely too stupid to be in office and need to be removed. If they voted for the the IWR out of political or other expediancy, then they too should be fired from their job, for they failed drasticaly in their primary job duty, being a collective voice for their constituents, and tens of thousands of innocents have paid the price.

Giving these people a pass will only insure that such things continue to happen. I don't know about you, but I find it impossible to reward anybody who enabled this illegal, immoral war, no matter what the letter behind their name is, especially since many many of them continue to give their tacit consent by voting for every funding bill that comes up.

Does this mean that we should give Bushco a pass? Hell no, we should continue to go after him with everything we've got. But wishing to declare pro-war Dems off limits simply because of the D behind their names is foolish and irresponsible. How many times have I heard here and elsewhere Democrats who want our government to be more responsive to the general populace? Well, the only way to achieve that is to hold our so called leaders responsible when they fuck up. That is what primaries are for. All that you're doing when you give them a pass is making them less accountable to the people, and when the Syrian War Resolution, or the Korean War Resolution, or whatever comes up, they will once again vote for it because hey! they got away with it over the IWR, they made a little maudalin half apology and were voted right back into office.

Accountability folks, that is what we need, both from Bushco and the Democrats. Sadly, that is something that has been seriously lacking for the past quarter century or more, and look where it has gotten us.