About 2008: You can't say you were against the war when you voted for it..

[dhinojosa]

I know the resolution and the war were two different things. But is anyone in the center (whose votes we need) is going to really give a crap about that nuance?

The republicans are going to hit us with that over and over, yet we are really salivating over candidates that supported either the war or the resolution or both. I am not trying to start a flame war, but you know this. In basic chess, you have to know how your opponent is going to attack you, and if you throw someone in there that voted or supported the resolution, with out a forceful and solid response, they are going to be demolished.

Either send someone who can say with assertion that the resolution and the war are different things, or send someone who can provide a layman term to send the point across to the center. For example, "The resolution was like we gave the keys of the car to George W. Bush, and he crashed it into the tree". That's what voters like to hear.

If a candidate can do that, then stick with him or her. But if they can't, I really urge you to think about it.

Also don't bother stating that I am just reiterating right-wing talking points. Until we can diffuse them, they will always continue to be right-wing talking points.

rant-off

On edit: grammar

[still_one]

1. I agree but it is very simple

put up:

Gore
Clark
Boxer
Feingold
Dean

or others that never voted for the war

[OhNoTheyDidNot]

3. Personally I think Dean was the best choice - I could see that Kerry was

too much of a push-over to take what Rove was about to dish out. Dean would have stood up for himself and I knew that. What we REALLY need to change is the states that get to nominate democratic candidates first. They clearly don't play chess.

[still_one]

6. changing the states that vote first will be impossible short term

I agree with you about Dean though

[OhNoTheyDidNot]

19. why impossible in the short ter?m I have never understood why. n/t

[still_one]

21. the democratic party rules would need to be changed

do you think there is enough support?

the states that are counted first wouldn't be for it, and even though they may NOT represent very many delegates it would cause problems.

It would have to be a grass roots effort because the DLC and DNC would not be for it because they want to insure the candidates they choose for us are the ones they want

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Probably the best way to do it would be one day for East coast primaries, one day for Midwest primaries, and one day for West coast primaries

[karynnj]

46. Your history needs refreshing

Dean whined about not wantying to be a pin cushion when Gephart put out some anti- Dean ads. The ads focused on issues, they were tough, but clearly not Rove slime level. Also, Kerry was incredibly careful with what he said, but he was monitored by the Bush guys constantly for anything they could use. They would have had a field day with Dean who couldn't hide his anger (as Kerry could) when attacked.

[mike_c]

5. agreed-- no one who voted for the IWR is suitable...

...except as a republican candidate, of course.

[election_2004]

26. That really wittles the field down....

Litmus tests such as that are extremely short-sighted.

[dissent1977]

41. Well when you are only able to choose one candidate...

The field needs to be wittled down. And what better way to do it then to reject all candidates who voted for one of the worst congressional resolutions in history.

[Ksec]

43. using the lies Bush told them.

[karynnj]

48. Clark said he would likely have voted to let the

inspectors in and Dean in 2002 was not arguing against it.

[imenja]

2. Who is John Kerry?

Would be the answer to your question on Jeopardy.

[DesEtoiles]

4. They were lied to - place blame with those truly responsible

[tuvor]

8. That might have worked...

...if those who were lied to had made some noise about it as soon as they found out.

[still_one]

9. then how come

Boxer, Feingold, Kucinish, Dean, Byrd, and others weren't fooled?

Let's face it, Iraq was NEVER an immenent threat. How do I know? Because if it was, we would have never risked a country that could launch nuclear weapons?

[Cynot]

49. I didn't believe the lies either.

Saying they were lied to is no excuse so I agree with you. If they were so naive that they fell for those blatant lies hook line and sinker then they truly are too stupid and incompetent to ever be president. We definitely need a candidate in 2008 who didn't even come close to supporting the war or the lies. There are plenty of qualified candidates who fit that bill BTW.

[AlGore-08.com]

20. But the problem with saying "they were lied to" so their votes are ok

Is that they're running for President and asking people to trust them to make the right decisions for the country. If they can be fooled into invading Iraq (or voting for the Patriot Act, or the Bush tax cuts), it asks a huge leap of faith to believe that they won't get fooled again. It's not like Bush is the only person in the universe who would ever try to fool them.

[Lecky]

23. Which is easier to believe?

#1 That the President and his entire cabinet had an ongoing conspiracy to take us into war no matter the cost, to "fix" the evidence around the issues...

or

#2 Iraq is an imminent threat (combined with your fears post-911)


I'd go with #2, not to mention there were other countries who believed President Bush's bullshit and sent their men off to die as well.


We still don't know what is going to be revealed about the war in Iraq...everyday, we find out more and more. The more I find out the more horrified I become at the length these crazy SOB's went to carry out this war. It wasn't just them we had the press involved with the BS propaganda. I just read that NYT article about even the CIA withholding evidence about Iraq because it would be politically damaging...WTF? It just gets more corrupt and bizarre each day...
I'm no conspiracy theorist but WOW.

What else did these bastards pull off? Hmmm...

Even if nothing comes out of the current ongoing investigations, it's way too early to be talking about 2008. We are not even through 2005 yet...so much can change by 08'. All this talk over 08' is premature and causes arguments.

[karynnj]

39. Good post

Especially because Powell - who had an excellent reputation - argued that the President needed the support to give the UN the force to demand getting the inspectors back in.

What is truly sad is that with the inspectors back in - and Hussain destroying missles that were borderline legal and the inspectors being able to search even Presidential palaces, that Bush didn't continue this and then declare his policy the enormous victory that it truly was. When the missles were destroyed Hussain bargined to prevent the Iraqis from knowing because he feared that it showed him as weak. The continued inspections could even have led to his defeat by the Iraqis. But regardless the sanctions could have been dropped once the country was clean.

This was what Bush SAID he wanted the backing to do. Going back to that time - what were the options:
1) status quo - although many countries were wanting to drop the santions and the sanctions were killing poor children (mainly due to bad water)
2) status quo, but drop the sanctions - not very popular due to fear of what Saddam might have.
3) Get the inspectors in - demand complete destruction of WMD
using force only if needed.

Number 3 was what Powell said they were voting for - it is not what Bush did.

[KansDem]

44. Actually, this might work...

Say "I voted for the Iraq War, but that was based on information given me by the President. And, we find out after the invasion that he lied about the need to go to war. He lied; there's no other explanation" Say this while you're shaking your head and looking down as if truly ashamed by the actions of the President. Then, snap to attention and say, "But I will not lie to you!" ala Jimmy Carter.

Might work...

[Imagevision]

7. Get real!! we were conned into the freegin war by deception!

[roguevalley]

10. our idiot congressman Don Young voted for the Patriot act without

reading it. He regretted it and voted against it this time around. It doesn't change the fact he knee jerked and put his career over the common good. Same here. Its in the tough dark moments that your character shows itself for what it is. There is no way in hell, hang the consequences I would have voted for the resolution. No way I would have trusted Bush with the open door to war. That is what I want in a candidate and if they don't have the character to do the right thing, hang the consequences, then buh-bye.

[still_one]

12. sorry, there were enough people who didn't buy it

and even if it was true, why did Congress relinquish their responsibility by giving * the authority to go to war. The Constitution is very clear on this, and so is the War Powers act from Viet Nam

I am not as forgiving as you are. That is what seperation of powers is all about

[OhNoTheyDidNot]

17. They weren't 'conned' - they were just too afraid to appear unpatriotic

they, like me, knew he was lying. you cannot tell me I knew and they didn't

[Guaranteed]

33. Yes.

Further, even if Bush had been telling the truth in everything he said, I STILL would have been against invading.

[dissent1977]

42. Many people were not conned

Before the war had even started a massive anti-war movement was already mobilized. Millions of people were saying that there was no case for war, but those who voted for the Iraq War Resolution decided that the Bush Administration was more trustworthy than the numerous voices saying that Bush was lying.

Anyone that would trust Bush over the numerous more credible sources does not deserve to be President.

[1932]

11. All but 2 Senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolation. A half-dozen

of the Yes voters were celebrated for being anti-war by '72, including, if memory serves, Gore Sr, Fulbright, and all the anti-war dem primary candidates in '68 and '72.

Giving the president the power to use the threat of war doesn't preclude a politician from being anti-war later.

[still_one]

13. actually I believe a republican from oregan also voted against it

he was later defeated by packwood

[1932]

15. I bet there aren't two DU'ers who could name the no voters in the next 15

minutes without having to google for the answer.

[dhinojosa]

16. Morse from Oregon and....

I don't know.....I thought there were 4?

[OhNoTheyDidNot]

18. Probably right, but Dean came out CHARGING and said it was a mistake

for them to have okayed it - If he was in the position he wouldn't have agreed = I know that. We need someone with a spine like him. If not him then fine, there's someone out there electable and was against this Iraq rape - maybe it's someone posting on DU

[karynnj]

40. He did NOT say that in Oct 2002

He was actually pretty militant in 2002

[bornskeptic]

29. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska

Both were defeated in their next elections.

[dhinojosa]

31. Interesting. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Logic doesn't fly too well on DU n/t

[AlGore-08.com]

22. Yeah, it's always better to have been right from the start

Than figure out later that you made a huge mistake.

[Lecky]

25. What about the fact that Republicans were wrong from the start

and STILL don't admit it was a mistake? They will never admit it was a mistake. Don't Americans deserve to know the truth? Why don't we ever switch it back on them?

Democrats need to put Republicans on the defense instead of letting them do that to us. Stop falling into that trap...

By 2008 I have a feeling we will know much more about what really happened in the path leading up to the war...

[Lecky]

24. Exactly

It's a RW talking point that many DU'ers seem to be falling for.

[dhinojosa]

27. If memory serves: Gore Sr, and Fulbright, weren't president in '68 and '72

That's a good point but I don't know how that helps our current situation.

[bornskeptic]

28. McGovern was the presidential candidate in 1972.

I don't remember anyone criticizing him in 1972 for voting for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. I don't think Gore lost many votes in 2000 because he voted for the Gulf War in 1991. Personally, I find that vote more objectionable than Kerry's vote in 2002. The vast majority of voters aren't going to care about the "IWR" vote in 2008 either, although I'm sure DUers will still be obsessed with it.

[dhinojosa]

30. So just ignore it, and pretend that republicans will be nice about it?

How is that going to help?

[1932]

34. How are Republicans going to be mean about it?

They're going to criticize Democrats for giving Bush a powerful tool to force compliance with UN inspections?

It's Democrats who are going to be mean about it, and the question you have to answer if you plan on being mean about it is, "why do you want to write off all Yes voters on the IWR for not being anti-war enough to be president when, in '68 and '72, it was Yes voters on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution who were embraced as the most anti-war of candidates?

[dissent1977]

50. This was a different situation then the Tonkin Resolution...

There were many, many, opponents of the Iraq War Resolution that we have to choose from. Why should we give anyone a chance if they trusted Bush, over the many more credible voices who were saying Bush was lying?

[1932]

52. Vietnam was as wrong if not moreso than Iraq

And more people grew to disagree with it than with Iraq.

Regardless, I still don't think voting yes or no on a war resolution pigeonholes a politician.

[dissent1977]

55. I'm not saying that it wasn't wrong....

It certainly was an unjust war no doubt about it. But the difference is that the anti-war side was not heard nearly as loudly before the Vietnam war began. Those who supported Vietnam in the beginning had a much better excuse for supporting it, because they did not hear any opposition. With Iraq there was a loud and vocal anti-war movement, but the people who voted for the resolution chose to listen to Bush instead of the numerous more credible sources.

I am not completely excusing those who voted for the Tonkin Resolution, I am just pointing out that it was a different situation.

[dissent1977]

47. When thousands more are dead, hundreds of billions wasted, and...

we are still in Iraq, I think Americans will care a great deal about the IWR in 2008.

[paulk]

32. "is anyone in the center going to give a crap about that nuance?"

most people I talked to didn't even know what the IWR was. The left was far more concerned about the IWR (as still evidenced by some of the responses to this thread) than those in the center ever were.

People voted for Bush (if you accept the 2004 election as legit, which I don't) because they didn't want to change leadership in the middle of a war. Remember, the public still supported the war back in November... And they bought the spin that Republicans could protect us from "terror" better than Democrats. That's changing, too.

[dhinojosa]

36. No it was the flip flop.....

It was because Kerry couldn't explain why he voted for the Iraq War Resolution, without stumbling for the words. I am sorry to have to say this but for people who don't care about politics, the flip flop thing made sense to them.

It was tough having to explain what the war resoultion was and why it is different than a declaration. It would have made it easier for Kerry to explain it but he didn't do that effectively, if at all.


My 2 cents

[sakabatou]

35. Well 2008 will be the first time I vote for a presidential election

[dhinojosa]

37. Cool! will you be ready for 2006?

[sakabatou]

38. Yep

Already filled out my voters' application

[Ksec]

45. Using info told by a lying President they believed.

If Im given false info I cant make a valid decision.

So when we listened to Bushs speeches and voted on what he told us , that makes our votes irrelevant.

Theyll say you were privy to the same intel and thats NOT TRUE. We were NOT provy to the same info Bush was using

[LittleClarkie]

51. It's not fair to let those off the hook who didn't have to vote

They shouldn't be able to run away from their positions at the time just because they didn't have to hang later by a vote and could then say whatever without getting nailed.

That's not fair to the Senate.

[dhinojosa]

53. Nice point....

That's why I (a Clark fan) have been critical of Clark lately.

[90-percent]

54. duped in Iraq

If I, an average internet user, knew this thing was BOGUS LIES back in 2002, then anybody that claims they were chumped doesn't have the stuff to be president.

They only got enough stuff to maybe manage a McDonald's or similar vocation.

-85%