Do Democrats Need a Presidential Candidate Who DIDN'T Vote For the IWR?

[Placebo]

Poll question: Do Democrats Need a Presidential Candidate Who DIDN'T Vote For the IWR?

Be it a senator, governor, or any other elected official.

Could we effectively run a candidate in 2008 who "voted for the war" but is now anti-war? Or would it be best to have a candidate who was right from the start?

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. I don't think the IWR will matter at all in 2008

It will be a six year old vote. It's time to move on. Support the candidates who have a plan now instead of rehasing the past ad nauseum.

[yurbud]

9. Damn, why didn't Jeffrey Dahmer think of that defense?

"We should focus on the future, not who is in my freezer."

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. That's one of the most ludicrous comparisons I've ever seen

I expect better from you, yurbud. That's just intellectually weak.

[rainy]

31. not really, that's a great comparison. Murder was and is being

committed. Why, just because the stupid rest of the country ignores it, should we forgive those who facilitated it?

[saltpoint]

39. Run that comparison past a good attorney and see how "great" it is.

[yurbud]

61. who usually says forget the past?

The guilty or the innocent?

Usually its the person who has a blemish on their track record at the very least--and usually it's selective.

The best case in point is racist Southerners who tell blacks still concerned about the effects of jim crow and slavery to forget the past while they themselves cling to their flag and long for the good old days when you could own people.

The demcrats who say forget the past about iwr do so because they know its indefensible based on evidence once the extreme hysteria of 9/11 has worn off.

People who have dealt with foreign & military affairs have no excuse.

I would at least respect someone who said he was snowed by the cheap oil argument for the war made at a lower volume than the embarrassing terror/wmd one made for the knuckledraggers. That is at least plausible since it has a history in foreign policy considerations.

[saltpoint]

22. It would surprise many of us if Mr. Dahmer sought the nomination in 08.

He is a bit out of the picture.

It might be more useful to focus on more electable candidacies.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

23. Why not? Isn't Bernard Goetz running for office in NY?

GOP ad:
"Stay the Course. Dahmer / Manson '08"

[saltpoint]

33. Perhaps you could give us an update on the Strickland campaign, OMB.

Yor sarcasm is untoward.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

48. It's low-key. Of note, though: No mention of Bob Fitrakis in LWV guide

No sarcasm intended, Crusoe. I did recently run across a site for a Bernie Goetz campaign. Thought it was interesting enough to share. I was living in NY when the subway shooter made headlines and political schisms.
As for the land of Strickland, SHerrod Brown, etc. you wouldn't know there's an election coming up in my corner of the state. Maybe folks with commercial TV are seeing ads. Seems there are a number of Dems who didn't file their forms right and are running as write-ins. Makes you wonder whether there's any Democratic apparatus in Ohio at all. (Hello, Chris Redfern?)

[saltpoint]

49. Well, I hope there can be a few wins for you guys there, and that

the party can begin to rebuild itself. It did better when the unions were stronger in the NE quadrant and when Metzenbaum was in the Senate. But that was a while back.

I would love to see Dennis Kucinich survive the primary challenge he's getting, and if somehow -- I know it's a long shot -- but if somehow Jean Schmidt could be turned out of office in her district, that would be a sweet headling to wake up to on Nov. 8th. I will yelp for days with sheer joy if we can send that Murtha-bashing houndog back to hell where she evidently came from.

And meanwhile, a lot of us who aren't in Ohio will be rooting for you. Brown, Strickland, the whole bunch. The bluer the better.

You hang in there, OMB. More power to ya.

[FrenchieCat]

27. I don't even understand how

Being wrong from the start could somehow be better than having been right from the start. :shrug:

I guess this is one time that being wrong is OKey-Dokey.....no matter what it has cost us.

War and Peace. Guess it doesn't matter much these days! :sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

37. It always matters. Black and white thinking pretends to shrink it

to either-or, right-or-wrong thinking, and the work of the U.S. Senate does not lend itself to that.

It never has.

It may never.

It involves compromise, and that is a complex process. That chamber is our chamber, by the way. And many noble things have taken place on that floor.

[FrenchieCat]

and many a things that weren't quite so noble....too! n/t

[Ecumenist]

2. Just one that admits they were duped by these creeps

lied to and misled. Just tell the truth, that's all.

[yurbud]

12. If someone was duped, they are retarded. They either agreed with the

real goals, or they feared for their lives.

Someone who thought Saddam was a threat to us would have a hard time making it through the day without soiling themselves.

I can excuse the average joe on the street for believing the Bush propaganda, but those in Congress, especially those old enough to remember the Cold War when we had an enemy with as many or more nukes than us who still didn't dare use them, knew it was a lie.

If they say otherwise, they are lying to us now, just as they are when they say they are mystified about why Bush invaded Iraq.

[saltpoint]

13. We could take Bob Graham, then-Senator of Florida and Chair of

the Intelligence Committee.

Information was withheld from members of that committee, as has been demonstrated.

I don't think a case could be made that Senator Graham is retarded.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Bob Graham voted AGAINST the IWR.....

so what is your point in emoting his name?

[saltpoint]

16. My post concerned withheld, or perhaps doctored, intelligence.

Senator Graham has said as much, and that was one point.

Another point was I am suspicious of folks who slam others they disagree with as "retarded," especially when it's unlikely that the poster in question knew, first-hand, exactly what went down on the Senate floor.

I believe none of us knows that.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Like I said...graham voted against it....cause he wasn't even close

to being retarded. he knew, and so did the other 23 senators, and however many Representatives who voted against the IWR.

you see, some Dems even chose to Co-Sponsor the Lieberman blank check that passed. And those Dems understood the Geopolitical reasons that Bush wanted to go into Iraq.....besides the WMD.

We would be naive now to believe that Bush was that good in fooling everyone....when I knew at the time that it was just a bunch of bullshit.....and of course, maybe it was because I was paying attention....but I wasn't PAID to pay attention, like our politicians were.

Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution
by Sen. Russ Feingold
October 11, 2002
after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme. It is impossible to justify any such double standard under international law. Might does not make right. America cannot write its own rules for the modern world. To attempt to do so would be unilateralism run amok.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/07/lol.03.html

SHIELDS AND BROOKS
September 27, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec02/sb_9-27.html

MARGARET WARNER: Quick final question in one minute to the two of you. Do you think Democrats who oppose the president in this are taking a political risk?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it's short-term. If the election is November and that's all it is about, there is a risk, especially if you are in a state where the president… I mean the states I mentioned, the president carried virtually all of them, so that is a problem.

[saltpoint]

32. As I explained, FC, the point was in response to an upthread poster's

assertion that anyone who was duped was "retarded."

I know how Bob Graham voted. He was the college roommate of personal friends of mine and I follow his career doings with respect.

I think it's a bit presumptious, don't you, for liberals and progressives to call Democratic U.S. Senators "retarded"?

If nothing else, it's bad form.

That was the point.

The other point, which I also explained, dealt with the Bush administration's steady deception and withholding of key data that ought to have gone to the Intelligence Committee all along, which was chaired prior to his leaving by Bob Graham.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Bad form.....yeah.

and it's not anything I did....

[saltpoint]

40. What's not anything you did? Don't get your meaning here.

[FrenchieCat]

44. called anyone retarted......

Geeze, I'm going night-nite......gotto get my beauty sleep and rest my political instincts. :hi:

[saltpoint]

46. Sleep tight & good wishes.

[saltpoint]

19. Graham has accused the Bush administration and the FBI of a "cover-up,"

Graham's term, of 9/11 information, the role of the Saudi government, and quite a long list of other specifics.

The atmosphere of disclosure is non-existent under this administration.

[yurbud]

59. that was impressive to me too. If there is any poetic justice, he'll get

Negroponte's job if a Democrat ever gets in office.

[yurbud]

58. Graham also asked why, even if Saddam had nukes, he would be dumb

enough to use them on us. Tenet was forced to say that Saddam would only use them if he was being invaded and on the brink of being deposed.


He asked the obvious question that not too many other Democrats did in public, though to their credit,people like Zbigniew Brzezinski are saying now about Iran.

Using nukes on us or giving them to terrorists who do is the one way to be sure your country is wiped off the map.

[Ecumenist]

54. There was such a groundswell of fear that people and jingoistic

patriotism. I am not making excuses for any potential candidate... just saying what the person needs to say. I believe that there was more than just going along for political expediency... I believe that we'll soon find out that the secret wiretapping was something that was used to threaten, cajole and exhort people. Karma's a bitch.

[yurbud]

56. blackmail seems more likely than the "gee whiz, we didn't know"

[O.M.B.inOhio]

26. Yes, Kerry missed that opportunity: "I voted to trust you, Mr. President."

"The American people chose to trust you. I and the other representatives of the People took you at your word. That there were weapons of mass destruction. The resolution to leverage Saddam into compliance. War as a last resort. We listened to Rice's scenario of a mushroom cloud over New York. Rumsfeld's specific assertions that we knew where the weapons were. We trusted that you had stepped up to be the leader we needed, sir. But you betrayed us, Mr. President. Your self-serving deceptions did more harm to the USA than any traitor in history; did more to harm our way of life than Osama Bin Laden himself. (And by the way, where the fuck is he, Georgieboy?)"

[Ecumenist]

53. Preach it, OMB

That's exactly what I meant by just standing up and admitting that they were LIED to by those evilo, treasonous bastards.

[blm]

64. Kerry did say that in 04 - many times. Media editted down his words to

the point where so many even today can't remember what was said.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

70. I was listening for that, never heard it forcefully, showing the betrayal

I did once hear Kerry say he voted for the *authorization* for war.Over and over, that campaign seemed to be saying to themselves, "Yup, we made our point, let's move on." I never heard Kerry take the angle that would help Bush '00 voters save face: "Hey, he pissed on us all." Rarely as an indignant attack. He sounded like he was making excuses for his record, equivotating, explaining the definition of 'is.' What Kerry did say most often gave the bastatrds that damned quote about "I voted for the war, then I voted against it," which was damning when taken as a sound bite. Certainly, that is what the "independent" media used, but is representational of Kerry's tone.
The Kerry team was against the weakest candidate in my lifetime but they performed so badly that they nearly lost.

[blm]

74. BULL, that soundbite was about the 87 billion - JK voted FOR the bill WITH

accountability in it, that any money would be targeted for the safety of the troops and their equipment and armor and that the 87 billion would be offset by repealing 87 billion in tax breaks enkoyed by the wealthiest. He then voted AGAINST the bill Bush wanted that had NO ACCOUNTABILITY for that 87 billion.

BIG EFFIN DIFFERENCE from what you stated in your post.

The MEDIA spun it into a soundbite about the war. YOU Fell for it and are spreading the falsehood.

[FrenchieCat]

28. They were not misled....and neither was I.

they were outmaneuvered politically. That's staying honest.

It is possible that Joe Blow was misled. But these professional politicians were not...I don't believe.

[LittleClarkie]

3. (stamps foot and crosses arms)

I'm not over 2004. I still want now what I wanted then. I don't care if he DID vote for the freakin' IWR.

In a political sense, maybe you're right. But then maybe WEL is right, and it won't matter by then.

I think two things:

1. It's not fair to those who were put into a position of having to vote one way or the other to compare them unfavorably with those who never were put into that position, and forced to make that decision.

2. I also think that whoever it is, vote or not, they just need to be able to defend themselves properly regardless, be it an offhand comment or a vote or whatever.

It would also be nice if we could get a fair shake in the media, but that's probably asking too much. Liberal media my ass.

[MH1]

76. It's not fair, but it's convenient

for those who benefit by disqualifying a large number of Democratic Party leaders.

Just sayin.'

[bluestateguy]

4. I'd prefer somebody without a messy congressional voting record at all

The media and the Republicans seem to demand absolute consistency in voting records over a candidate's congressional career. Think about that. Is that really feasible with all of the complicated amendments that congresspeople have to vote on, and the fact that members have to vote up or down on the whole piece of legislation as complete packages, not as bits and pieces that they like. This complex nuance can be easily distorted in a campaign, especially in a 30 second ad-bite. So I would rather have a candidate who does not have spend his or her time cutting through the weeds of a congressional voting record.

[Placebo]

6. Governor Warner, maybe?

[FrenchieCat]

41. or maybe not....

[blm]

65. You think the people haven't awakened to the tactics the GOPs use now to

deflect from reality?

I think MOST of them have and they're not happy with the demagoguery or susceptible to it any more.

[smoochpooch]

5. It's o.k. to have voted for it

Voters now realize that they were decieved into this war, and can understand that Congress was fooled the same way. Candidates could run on saying, "Hey, I feel just as used as you folks do and I'm mad as hell!" Still, you gotta respect those who never bought into it from day one.

[Donna Zen]

51. This is more than just about getting votes

This is about who will sit in the Oval Office. They were not "fooled." They were all talked to in public and behind closed doors. The "Iraq Reconstruction Group" was meeting openly in the summer of 02, and all of Washington knew it. The Iraq War is the worst geopolitical blunder this nation has ever committed. Is that who we want leading the country? Someone who thought that the worst idea ever was a good idea?

Not only do I want someone who knew what a liar bush is/was, I want someone who understands right from wrong and puts this country first.

Besides, those who voted for the war may say "oops" but they don't want to talk about the IWR and the lead up to war. Hell, sometimes they don't even want to talk about anything that comes close to foreign policy. If we can't talk about something, then it is not an issue. If we give up an important issue because of the personal bad judgement-stupidity of a particular candidate, then we lose. I'm not into losing again.

Besides, as I said, I believe that anyone I vote for better have the integrity and the brains, to lead our country out of this mess, not try to spin their damn vote.

[saltpoint]

7. I think a candidate who spoke ENGLISH would fare awfully well, right out

of the gate.

I wouldn't want to be a Republican House member in a tight race in 06, and I think the 08 vote is going to be strong for blue.

Expressive, empathetic concern for the plight of real people in difficult times is the key.

[iconoclastNYC]

8. Yes.

The party needs to have a heart to heart with the American people and start talking about how the Bush administration used 9/11 as a political cudgel.

There has to be a mea culpa and we also must put forth a Democrat who was brave enough to stand up for the country when it was difficult.

[saltpoint]

11. The percentage of pro-war in the voting population was quite a bit

higher than it is now.

The shift in attitudes about this war has been swift and dramatic and has come at the expense of Bush's legacy. With Vietnam it took almost a decade for such a shift; for Bush and Iraq, it's happened inside 3 years.

I think the next presidential ticket will reflect a wiser, cooler-browed, pro-diplomacy, anti-pre-emptive, and environmentally aware platform.

[DanCa]

14. The direction of the supreme court is more important too me.

Sure I would like to have a senator who didn't vote for the war, or a non senator like Clark (who was never for this damn war to begin with). But I am also a big picture guy. We have to win in 08 so that we can place people on the high court. That's what we should be concentrating on in my opinon. Think about the future of the country and not about someone vote in the past.

[AmericanDream]

17. Difference between "need" and "best"

Of course, it would be best to have a candidate without the baggage of the IWR vote, but that doesn't mean that this qualification is absolutely "needed"... I can think of a couple of people who can carry this baggage and still have the same chance of victory as those who did not or could not vote for this war.

[saltpoint]

21. Agree. It is not having been in the Dark House, Teddy Roosevelt said,

but whether one had the wherewithal to leave it.

That spirit is more likely to appeal to voters, in my opinion. They can be very forgiving if they feel the conversion is genuine.

[FrenchieCat]

18. It is not my preference to have a President that voted for

what we are still dealing with.

It was one of the most important votes there was....a time when those who were standing while others were sitting showed us what true leaders looked like; those with determination and no fear nor agendas. The true servants of this nation vs. the calculating pols....

I will add that those who apologized 3 years later are not excused in my book. I can forgive possibly...but I will never forget.

so, I certainly can't reward someone with the highest office in this land to be it's Commander in Chief on the basis that they finally got it right.....after so being so wrong for so long......literally for years; with billions and lives being lost.

Billions gone from our treasury that could have made a difference in the lives of those who are now having programs cut from underneath them....the poorer of the poor.

Not to forget that it ain't over yet......who knows, the way things are going, it may get worse before it gets better.

[saltpoint]

20. But you would concede, would you not, that others do not begrudge

an evolved consciousness, that others may in fact value and honor an evolved consciousness, especially when it has the temerity and grace to admit it was wrong?

[FrenchieCat]

25. I concede nothing.......because I remember it all too well.....

It would depend on the apology. If it is an honest apology based on having voted for political expediency, I would respect that much more than someone who was in the hall of the senate or the house stating that they had been "Misled".

For those who forgot the "times", it was a highly politically charged chapter in our history, crafted by the administration specifically due to the elections that were coming and a war they had been wanting to wage for some time.

Simply, Democratic Politicians were put on a ledge by Rove and them. Either Dems would be forced to vote an unpopular vote of conscience or Dems would go along because the President was very popular at that time and 9/11 was still fresh. It was a gamble leaning more toward voting for the war as the safest option politically speaking....but only at the time.

The game since, changed dramatically, and what was "safest" then, became a liability once Bush's Justification for war began to fall apart. It was a game of roulette set up by the Administration...where the Dems were forced to play.

Votes weren't cast one way or the other based on being misled; they were cast based on being politically outmaneuvered.

[saltpoint]

34. Well you may find that your General Clark is the nominee. I'll support

a ticket with him at its head.

Will you do the same if it's not your favorite at the top?

[FrenchieCat]

38. Of course......

But how hard I will work is a different issue, though.

I have natural energy and passion for what I believe in.....and for those I believe in.....(like many others)

Without energy and passion, I will work for another who I don't really believe in....not so much!

[saltpoint]

42. A common goal is a grand thing. I'll see you at the Democratic

victory party in 06 when we flip the House and also in 08 when we exterminate the vermin in the White House.

[FrenchieCat]

43. And in fact, I'm sick to death of 2008 before it even starts!

To be honest with you.

2006 really is what I'm trying to concentrate on. Been posting in the California forum, donating money, and writing letters requesting endorsements from newspapers for certain candidates.

Certainly General Clark is running himself ragged up and down the state supporting Dem Candidates facing races in Red Districts.

He doesn't have a lot of money sitting in a kitty to throw around....so he has to physically show up and hold fundraisers everywhere. If I showed you his schedule, you'd be in awe!

Anyways, once we win, and investigations start, I'll relax a bit. Can't Wait!

[saltpoint]

45. Well, how's this, then -- we're going to kick so many Republican butts

from here to Houston that they won't be able to seat anybody for years.

Will that work?

Of course there will be some disappointments, but we can see already that the trendlines favor more blue than red wins. Santorum, third-ranked in the Senate, is on the ropes in Pennsylvania. Mean Jean Schmidt in Ohio is battling to hold on against strong challenge from Democrats. Ohio generally is trending blue.

Only 4 states poll over 50% approval for Bush, and their combined electoral clout is less combined than Oregon. You'll have to check my math there, but I'm close. In other words, Bush is cooked personally and historically, and Republicans are going down with the ship in a LOT of districts.

My sleeves will be rolled up also, Frenchie Cat. The goal is definitely worth it.

[FrenchieCat]

47. You are a great diplomat......

and it's good to kinda of know where you stand......for just plain victory, I guess....which is a practical and a good possibility. It is not a bad approach my friend.

Now, for that beauty sleep I so need.

Did you read my post to Placebo....that the poll was rigged?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2593129&mesg_id=2593210

[saltpoint]

50. I did. And truly, I'm no diploment, but I'm a dyed-in-the-wool

Democrat, and that's all I can really offer to the party.

I want a blue Nov. 8 and I mean REAL blue!

Good night to ya.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Actually Placebo, your question is "Misleading"......

The OP headline as to what appears to be the poll question would profer a "Yes" vote....from me anyways.....
Poll question: Do Democrats Need a Presidential Candidate Who DIDN'T Vote For the IWR? On that question, I would vote YES.

But the real questions inside the op post, and there are really two..... you are asking right above the votes is
Could we effectively run a candidate in 2008 who "voted for the war" but is now anti-war?

Or would it be best to have a candidate who was right from the start?

I would vote NO on the first 1/2, and Yes on the 2nd half of that question....
And actually you are asking for a choice.....but only providing a Yes or No possibility, which makes no fucking sense.

It's like me asking Do you like Red OR do you like blue.....Yes or No.

Maybe cause it's so late, and I should have my ass in the bed.
But I think that we was "bamboozled".

Please change my vote to "I'm not voting, cause this shit is too confusing". :shrug:

[bowens43]

30. 'voted for the war' is republican spin.

No one voted for the war. There was no vote on whether or not to go to war..

[FrenchieCat]

35. What does this title mean to you?....cause it has "WAR" in the title

of the Resolution.

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[blm]

67. ALL resolutions are to get compliance using the threat of war - not all

presidents would make that decision to invade after weapons inspections and diplomatic means were proving military force was not needed.

[Kashka-Kat]

68. I guess I'm a republican and didn't know it . Sheesh.

[Kashka-Kat]

60. Everyone at the time knew EXACTLY what that vote meant- it authorized the

the war while providing democrats who voted for it some degree of deniability. Was widely discussed everywhere. All the evidence /reasons for not going to war or authorizing the prez were widely discussed well in advance. Hence entire unprecedented worldwide anti-war movement. Powell's UN testimony was discredited, news reports in main stream media re: dissent within CIA & complaints about politicization of the agency & being pressured to come up w/ evidence against IRaq where none existed -- all of these reported in mainstream media well before the war.

A few brave souls chose to vote no, most chose to vote yes. So it goes. Let the chips fall where they may...

Give me an explanation and a sincere & convincing apology and I'll vote for you and bust my ass to get you elected. BS me and I'm outa here. People know when they're being BS'ed.

[skyblue]

63. It is Republican Spin.

Thank You.

[LWolf]

52. Your questions cancel each other.

So I didn't vote in the poll. My answers:

Do we need a candidate who did not vote for the IWR? A resounding YES.

Could we effectively run a candidate that took years and lives to become "antiwar?" NO. At least, not if my vote is involved.

It would be best to have a candidate who has opposed the Bush regime and everything it stands for from the moment of his selection. That includes the IWR, the "patriot act," and the rest of his destructive agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

55. They don't "need it," but it definitely IMO would be preferable.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. Perhaps we need a candidate who was not a member of Congress in 2002

Former VA Governor Mark Warner?

[Pithy Cherub]

72. Blech. Warner is so national security challenged

he doesn't want to focus on HOW we got into the debacle in Iraq.

[leesa]

62. We need a candidate who will state that the war is illegal and immoral

and that those who started it need to be prosecuted for treason.

[skyblue]

66. How many Repigs are part of Anti-War groups?

Sorry! but I don't get that the Repigs are on the same page with Democratic thinking about it as you'd think. They may view the anti-war groups negatively as well as candidates who depend on that to appeal to voters in the general election.

[SOS]

69. April numbers:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 7-9, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve 32%
Disapprove 65%

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" N=518, MoE ± 4 (Form A)

Made a Mistake 57%
Did Not Make a Mistake 42%

Running a pro-IWR Democrat would amount to political suicide.

[skyblue]

81. IWR --NOT CUT AND DRY

Actually this is from a different Poll.

March 10-12 USA/Today/Gallup Cnn Poll. Page 3 of 8

Question 14 - Withdraw Immediately 19
Withdraw Take As Many Years as Needed 39

And this hasn't changed since Nov of 2005.

Could it be any more clear that the issue of IWR is not Cut and Dry?

[TayTay]

71. We need to start to organize to get the hell out of Iraq

We need to welcome all comers to the cause.

We need to remember that people are dying NOW in Iraq in an unnecessary war.

We need to remember that the Iraqis want us to get out and take out 'permanent bases' with us.

We need to do things now to get this stupid cluster-fuck over. NOW! We need all converts, heretics and former enemies to come forward and support this effort because it is for the good of our country.

We need this because we have to stop the dying.

Or, we can get in a circular firing squad and commence the circle jerk. I know what a better use of my time is.

[Totally Committed]

73. Or one that disavows his vote publicly and with humility...

that would do as well. (Yes, I realize I said "his". I do not believe ANY female candidate can win, so it doesn't really matter what Senator Clinton does, in my book. She can't win, so she shouldn't run is my position.)

TC

[IndianaGreen]

82. Hillary continues to support the war, like Lieberman and Biden

Kerry has expressed regret over his IWR vote.

Booo Hillary! Applaud Kerry!

[Clark2008]

75. It doesn't have to be an elected official, for that matter.

But yes.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Exactly right n/t

[politicasista]

77. Who are we helping again? That's right Bush, Dems don't have plans

they would rather fight over things that happened in the past instead of focusing on a mid-term election, trying to support those who want out of Iraq and our doing things to make the lives of Americans better despite the corruption and evil that looms over us and lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's continue to fight and play the republicans game of focusing on the future instead of now, knowing that NONE of us have a clue of what the political landscape will look like two years from now.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Things that happened in the past?

Is the War over or somethin'? Cause somebody forgot to tell the soldiers!

[IndianaGreen]

80. If the candidate repented of his/her IWR vote, and stands in support

of censuring/impeachment of Bush & Co, I don't see the point of holding that one vote against.

Now, if they are unrepentant, forget it!

[James Madison]

83. No, but we need someone from outside of the federal government.

Congress' poll numbers are lower than the boy's.

[xkenx]

84. Sen. Carl Levin from Michigan

was at a Securing America (Wes Clark's PAC) conference in D.C. last November. I was there. He was asked about the IWR/WMD intelligence. Sen. Levin replied that there was PLENTY of intelligence available to all the Senators to debunk the B*** Admin's claims of WMD, NUCULAR, and other lies.
So he voted against it out of conscience. He danced around implying that those who voted for the IWR were doing so for chickenshit political reasons to not look soft on terrorism. So my vote is for people who voted nay, or Wes Clark who had the courage to testify against a blank check for Bush before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in Sept., 2002. And where neocon Richard Perle testified for IWR and accused Clark of being too dovish.

[xkenx]

85. MI Senator Carl Levin said Senate HAD enuf intel to vote NO--read on.

Levin was at a Securing America (Wes Clark's PAC) conference in D.C. last November. I was there. He was asked about the IWR/WMD intelligence. Sen. Levin replied that there was PLENTY of intelligence available to all the Senators to debunk the B*** Admin's claims of WMD, NUCULAR, and other lies.
So he voted against it out of conscience. He danced around implying that those who voted for the IWR were doing so for chickenshit political reasons to not look soft on terrorism. So my vote is for people who voted nay, or Wes Clark who had the courage to testify against a blank check for Bush before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in Sept., 2002. And where neocon Richard Perle testified for IWR and accused Clark of being too dovish.

[ChiciB1]

86. The Iraq War Is SOOOO Debunked So I Don't Think It's

going to be a BIG issue. I don't LIKE that they all fell over, but the fact that some have actually come forward and stated they wish they would have NOT done it makes it easier for me. At least the few who came out very early and made the case for NOT voting for the war now!

The others that are just now getting on board DO bother me though!