NO ONE SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR VOTING FOR THE IWR

[still_one]

The IWR over-ruled the War Powers Act, which would have provided the necessary Congressional oversight to the executive branch

Viet Nam was based on lies, and that is why the War Powers Act became law

Those who voted for the IWR, and are running for president, DO NOT DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT

They have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and made life a living hell in Iraq

There were over 20 Democrats, and 1 republican who voted against the IWR.

The more I think about it, the madder I get, and I truely do not know if I can vote for ANYONE who voted for that obscene piece of legislation.

People are DEAD because of it. Children are DEAD because of it.

This country deserves exactly what it is getting, and most likely, they will continue the same folly as we did in Viet Nam

How many deaths will it take before someone says too many people have died?

[FrenchieCat]

1. That's what I've always believed!

And continue to believe. Period.

[still_one]

5. and because of the suffering of so many people of the results of that vote, I have to agree /nt

[babylonsister]

2. ESPECIALLY no one who can't admit they made a mistake. Too familiar for me. nt

[Symarip]

3. Eep!

The pony haters get upset when you bring up the ar-way ote-vay.

[still_one]

4. A lot of people are dead because of that vote /nt

[jackson_dem]

6. No one is being rewarded for it

Do you see anyone here citing the IWR as a reason to support Clinton?

[Breeze54]

7. 23 Senators and 133 House Members Voted Nay on the IWR

Honoring Congress Members Who Voted in 2002 Against the Iraq War

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/NoVoteIraq.htm

From Deborah White, Your Guide to US Liberal Politics.

Dec 1 2005

Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members Who Voted Nay

As the US suffers from the ill-conceived, poorly planned, direction-less War in Iraq that has killed over 2,100 US soldiers and wounded 17,000 more, is bankrupting our country, and has ruined our country's reputation around the world... it's time we recognize and honor the members of Congress who voted in 2002 to prevent the Bush Administration's hasty rush to attack and occupy Iraq.

The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress had enough information and personal wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the world community.

These discerning leaders should be reelected in 2006 and beyond. Their courage and foresight are exactly what our country needs to lead it out of its present abyss in Iraq.

In the US Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences against it were:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI); Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Robert Byrd (D-WV); Lincoln Chafee (R-RI); Kent Conrad (D-ND); Jon Corzine (D-NJ); Mark Dayton (D-MN); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Bob Graham (D-FL); Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Jim Jeffords (I-VT); Ted Kennedy (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Carl Levin (D-MI); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD); Patty Murray (D-WA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Paul Sarbanes (D-MD); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The 126 House Democrats who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq were joined by 6 Republican Congressmen and one Independent member of the House:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii);Tom Allen (D-Maine). Joe Baca (D-California); Brian Baird (D-Washington DC); John Baldacci (D-Maine) now Governor of Maine; Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina); Xavier Becerra (D-California); Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon); David Bonior (D-Michigan) retired from office; Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania); Corinne Brown (D-Florida); Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Lois Capps (D-California); Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland); Julia Carson (D-Indiana); William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri); Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina) retired from office; James Clyburn (D-South Carolina); Gary Condit (D-California) retired from office; John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan); Jerry Costello (D-Illinois); William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania) retired from office; Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland).

Susan Davis (D-California); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon); Diana DeGette (D-Colorado); Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts); Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut); John Dingell (D-Michigan); Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas); Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania); John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee).

Anna Eshoo (D-California); Lane Evans (D-Illinois); Sam Farr (D-California); Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania); Bob Filner (D-California); Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts); Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas); Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois).

Alice Hastings (D-Florida); Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama) retired from office; Maurice Hinchey (D-New York); Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas); Rush Holt (D-New Jersey); Mike Honda (D-California); Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon); John Hostettler (R-Indiana); Amo Houghton (R-New York) retired from office; Jay Inslee, (D-Washington).

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois); Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas); Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas); Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio); Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio); Dale Kildee (D-Michigan); Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan)


-----------

Otherwise... great post and sentiment.

:kick: & Recommended

[still_one]

8. All of those that voted against it were courageous, in my book

With the media banging the war drums, pushing the WMD myth, and double speaking that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, these people put the country ahead of their political careers

[Breeze54]

9. They are the intelligent members in Congress.... the rest

were voting to go along or advance their political careers or are just plain dumbshits.

I agree, the one's who voted NO! are all courageous.

[Ravy]

10. People were dying without it, too.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying via UN Sanctions, too. Iraq was a bad situation.

The IWR was a chance for a good performing administration to remove Saddam from power and to guarantee that there were no WMD in Iraq, and to end the sanctions.

We did not have a good performing administration.

[Breeze54]

11. We didn't need to invade and bomb them into eternity to end the sanctions. n/t

[Ravy]

17. Right. The administration did that.

The IWR was not a declaration of war. It was the approval for Bush to invade if he couldn't get it done without troops.

He did get everything needed without the troops, but he used them anyway.

Had he not invaded, the IWR would be lauded. That is the shame of it.

[Breeze54]

20. How's that Koolaid? Strong, red and sweet?

:eyes:

[Ravy]

21. Another Bush apologist????

You think congress told him to?

I thought you guys were extinct.

[Breeze54]

22. WTF are you drinking?

You are the bush apologist and the one cheering and defending the people who voted FOR the IWR and WAR!!!

[Ravy]

23. First, I didn't cheer them.

I just said the IWR did not force Bush to go to war, and that had he not invaded, we would have had a guarantee of no WMD, Saddam would not be in power, and the sanctions could have been lifted.

The adminstration failed here, by misusing the tools Congress gave him to get the job done.

If it is your contention that Congress told Bush to invade, then that tells me you think Bush was only doing his job.

[Breeze54]

24. Of course the IWR didn't FORCE * to invade but

a NO vote across the board sure would have helped to wake up America and possibly stop him
in his tracks and as far as I'm concerned, those that voted for it aren't very bright and
lack judgment! He and his criminal cohorts planned to invade way before he was elected.

See: PNAC -->

Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President

10:10am Sunday 15th September 2002

http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president/

This article on SundayHerald.com was one of the first (or possibly the very first)
http://www.sundayherald.com/search/display.var.1032487.0.bush_planned_iraq_regime_change_before_becoming_president.php
place to break the story about the PNAC factor in regard to the war in Iraq.

SundayHerald.com: Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President

Here’s an excerpt:

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning
a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
advertisement

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

More....

----------

The IWR vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002....

[cali]

16. codswallop. It was, as Pat Leahy said repeatedly, an unconstitutional

blank check for war. I think Pat Leahy is a wee bit better a source than anyone here.

[dogday]

12. How come we did not feel that way about Kerry?

Did he not sign it as well? I cannot blame one Democrat for IWR, and I hate this war, my Son fought in it and was injured... What we need now is someone to get us out and I mean out, not leave 80,000 troops there to keep the peace...

[Breeze54]

13. I did blame Kerry and was not on his team....

until he was the nominee and then I actively worked to get Kerry elected.

I voted against bush in 2004, not for Kerry.

[dogday]

15. I too held my nose and voted the Dem Candidate and

will do so again... I don't have a candidate cause I am still not hearing the right thing come out of either of their mouths regarding this war....

[Breeze54]

18. I'm in the same boat as well....

It's like being in 'no man's land' being in that position and posting in GD-P.

No matter what you say, you're accused of being a ".........-hater" (fill in the blank) by either side. :eyes:

[JustinL]

14. and especially not for voting against these amendments

Byrd Amdt. No. 4868

Statement of Purpose: To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.

Senator Byrd's amendment failed 14-86. Clinton and McCain both voted nay. (roll call)

Levin Amdt. No. 4862

Statement of Purpose: To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

Senator Levin's amendment failed 24-75. Clinton and McCain both voted nay. (roll call)

Durbin Amdt. No. 4865

Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Senator Durbin's amendment failed 30-70. Clinton and McCain both voted nay. (roll call)

[enid602]

19. Obama

But only a coward and a hypocrite would make his oppponent's support for IWR the central theme of his campaign, given that he was not in a position to vote for or against it himself, and has a history of voting 'not present' on controversial issues. By Obama's own logic, Kerry and Edwards should be scorned as well, and should not have been rewarded with the Presidential offices they sought (and probably won) in '04. Do we really want this kind of leadership? Thank God America seems to finally be waking up!

[ecdab]

25. We would want to talk about policy choices, better to focus on religion

and make tenuous ties to other people - that's what courageous politicians do. :sarcasm:

[Breeze54]

26. Your title should read.....

NO ONE SHOULD BE REHIRED FOR VOTING FOR THE IWR

;)

[Dogmudgeon]

27. How 'bout *funding* the war?

That was a big issue around here for months. Democrats who refused to defund the war were "pink tutu Democrats" and "Dinos".

Until it turned out that Barack Obama voted to fund the war, too.

Now ... crickets.

--p!