Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senators Who Voted for the Iraq War: Forgive? Forget?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:16 PM
Original message
Poll question: Senators Who Voted for the Iraq War: Forgive? Forget?
Today we read that 33 of the original senators who voted to go to war with Iraq would vote differently given what they know today.

The 44 that would still vote to go to war are obviously insane.

But what of the 33 who've changed their mind? Should we forgive and/or forget?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laruemtt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. how about
don't forgive and don't forget? that's me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluewave Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Forgive only if they apologize, but never forget and remove.
Sorry, many others, even nobodies such as myself, saw this as a lie from the start. If their judgment isn't equivalent to mine back then at 18 years old, they have no business legislating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. were you given a bogus NIE at the start?
That was not released to the public until a year later? And is still not fully released?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluewave Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. It was obvious at the time
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:40 PM by bluewave
I was suspicious when all the innuendo seemed to confirm this decision to go to war without solid evidence. Remember the UN? The entirety of the evidence consisted of pictures showing trailers, which Colin Powell said were mobile labs. These looked no different than any other trailer, and he had no evidence to suggest that they weren't just trailers. Then he whipped out the clincher, a garbled tape of an Iraqi saying "did you get the stuff?... -stuff- yeah I got the stuff..." They could have been talking about absolutely anything. They could have been anyone, including non-Iraqis or even an American. Yet it was "proof." That clinched it: anyone watching of average intelligence could realize they were drawing conclusions to fit their assumptions.

Sorry, it was obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. the inspectors went in AFTER the vote
Fall 2002 is not Spring 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluewave Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's irrelevant.
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:55 PM by bluewave
There was no hard evidence suggesting they were even close to WMD. There was no evidence to suggest they had developed a delivery system. Inspectors are irrelevant: when you see speculation, innuendo, inductive reasoning, and non-sequiter conclusions. This pattern would lead anyone fit to hold office to believe that he/she was being mislead, or at least that the "facts" were being twisted to support the assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. other-- NEVER forget, NEVER forgive-- they betrayed our country....
They made all Americans war criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. So Max Cleland is a traitor...?
Interesting perspective!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. interesting way to try to use emotional language to dodge the issue...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:40 PM by mike_c
How would you characterize voting to make the U.S. a rogue nation guilty of the supreme war crime, a criminal war of aggression?

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

--Robert Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Dodge the issue?
You said this about Democrats that voted for the IWR...

"NEVER forget, NEVER forgive-- they betrayed our country...."

The question is simple and right on point...do you consider Max Cleland, who voted for the IWR, a traitor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I consider his vote for the IWR a betrayal of America....
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:43 PM by mike_c
Cast that any way you like. Do you think that prior patriotism makes him immune to the consequences of subsequent betrayal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Max Cleland didn't betray anyone...
Least of all his country...

And your vapid sloganeering does not make it so....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. nor does your apparent personality worship...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 04:41 PM by mike_c
...protect him from the consequences of his betrayal. You've really missed the point of this discussion entirely.

I answered your question-- now answer mine (see #17). Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Hardly...
Hard to miss the point of a discussion that has none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. see #17 and answer the question....
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. No. But Max Cleland also shouldn't get the 2008 nomination.
Neither should anyone else who voted for that thing- particularly anyone who has done a piss-poor job of articulating consistent moral opposition to the Iraq war since then, and instead has wasted time on bullshit non-issues like flag burning and video games.

Ahem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. I see you have...
Successfully internalized the left wing set of talking points...

I think some have a Function key set up on their computer somewhere that can automatically spit out these boilerplate posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Mmmm Hmmmm.
Yeah, she's wildly unpopular for that job here (not to mention in bastions of left-wing loonydom like Iowa) only because we've all been brainwashed with "left wing talking points".

Bottom line? She voted for the war- that, alone, will neutralize any opposition she claims to express against it in '08, just like it shot a big gaping "flip flopper" torpedo hole through Kerry's campaign. Worse than that, though, she has gone on to continue to boost the thing, trying to burnish her neo-con credentials. Oh, she knows which way the wind is blowing, so I suspect she'll try to make peace (if not PEACE) with the base- but it's too late. Writing is on the wall. I think it's extremely unlikely she'll be the nominee. So sorry. :( :( :(

Rinse. Repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Hmmmm.mmmm...
"Worse than that, though, she has gone on to continue to boost the thing, trying to burnish her neo-con credentials."

Citations please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. isnt the basis of this poll mostly emotion?
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:43 PM by LSK
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. I would say...
Your comment is so far off from the truth that I could spend weeks refuting it...

The definition of betrayal is not simply voting for the IWR, as much as left-wingers would like it to be...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. ok, lets take a different approach....
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 05:09 PM by mike_c
Do you agree or disagree with Robert Jackson's comment about aggressive war? Remember, this was the basis for the findings at Nuremberg.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."



Do you agree that the war against Iraq is a war of aggression? If you don't, how was Iraq a threat to the U.S.?


If the war against Iraq is a war of aggression, then it is "the supreme international crime" and its authorization was tantamount to U.S. conspiracy to commit a crime against humanity.

How is that not a betrayal of the U.S.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Yes I do agree...
However if you will read the floor statements of every Democratic Senator that voted for the IWR you will see specific condemnations of preemptive war...nor for an attack on Iraq.


I can provide for you quotes from Scott Ritter indicating that it was the threat of force which induced Iraq to the level of cooperation it accorded inspectors between 1991 and 1998...

I can provide you quotes from General Clark, who while opposing the IWR recognized the danger allegedly posed by Saddam and the possible need for force...

I can show you quotes from General Clark where he implies the IWR was actually working at getting inspectors back in Iraq before George Bush made the decision to go into Iraq...

The motivation behind the IWR vote for most Democrats (excluding probably Joe Lieberman), was a desire to reinsert inspectors into Iraq....

Even IWR opponents in their statements announcing their opposition recognized the alleged danger Saddam posed...

There is one man responsible for aggressive war in Iraq...George Bush.

The mistake made by IWR supporters was placing too much trust in his integrity. That was certainly a mistake as it became apparent after the IWR vote that he had been lying all along...and as virtually all have admitted...however that is not a war crime as you imply.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Iraq agreed to full and unconditional inspections in Sept 2002...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 05:45 PM by mike_c
...a month before the IWR vote. The inspectors were pulled from Iraq in 1998 BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. They were not kicked out by the Iraqis. The IWR had nothing to do with resumption of inspections, first because Iraq had already disarmed well before 1998 and second because Iraq had already agreed to full resumption of inspections. I should also point out that Iraq had indicated willingness to resume inspections prior to that, but that the U.S. consistently manipulated the negotiations between Baghdad and the Security Council.

The IWR had much more to do with preventing Hans Blix's UNSCOM from certifying Iraq in compliance with the U.N. disarmament mandate. Butler's UNSCOM of the 1990s was politically incapable of doing that, but Blix did not answer to the U.S. and was on the verge of doing the unthinkable-- letting Iraq off the hook before the U.S. achieved regime change.

The only recourse was a war of aggression. That war was a betrayal of America. You call that a "vapid slogan." I call it an historical judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. August 1998...
...Iraq suspended cooperation with UNSCOM on disarmament activities and also limited the commision's monitoring and verification activities. In October of that year Iraq halted all formal cooperation with U.N. inspection activities.

Iraq was trying to get sanctions lifted and was using inspections as a bargaining chip...for four years inspectors were not allowed into Iraq. They then offered a bogus conditional cooperation in August 2002, and finally under pressure of possible military threat sent a letter in which they said they would agree to allow inspections...

After 4 years of obfuscation and lying it was very hard to take them at their word.

The IWR for the Democrats that voted for it was a way to insure that this cooperation became manifest...and it worked...inspections continued after that.

If your assertion was the case, why would opponents such as Russ Feingold state his agreement with President Bush's assessment of the threat posed by Iraq...

As to your statement that Democrats who voted for the IWR were trying to prevent inspections from being completed, you have not a shred of evidence to support it...

That statement would be more accurate describing the Bush administrations later actions once the IWR had been in place, and was apparently working...It was the Bush administration that used the fig leaf of Hans Blix's final report as a justification for attacking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Butler_%28diplomat...

In 1998 Iraq accused Butler and other UNSCOM officials of acting as spies for the United States, but the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant (2000), it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes. A number of media reports in the United States suggested that there was some substance to the spying allegations. Both the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, citing anonymous sources, said that Butler had known of and co-operated with a US electronic eavesdropping operation that allowed intelligence agents to monitor military communications in Iraq. This was confirmed by UNSCOM insider Rod Barton on Australian television in February 2005. This intelligence was used to target US air attacks on Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Not such an emotional response.
Senators that supported it either:
1. believed the crap souffle (intelligence) from the WH,
2. like morons believed W's promise not to use the authority
3. abandoned their duty to the nation and put their careers first. Especially true of those who ran for president or are planning on doing so.

In any event, voting for the war casts serious doubt on their character or competence that mere forgiveness cannot erase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. .
Maybe providing more neutral options would help?

If one came to the conclusion that this vote was a terrible mistake, I'd consider forgiving if they truly meant it. But still, I won't vote for the second option if it's combined with "just another data point" because that's not the case. People who are inclined to vote for "forgive but not forget" have to believe that it's just another data point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. Gross and indifferent neglect of their constitutional responsibility
to check war powers from a cabal of pnacing warmongers. that's the BEST thing you can say about them. The alternatives are too sick to imagine

I'd like to see them all replaced. It won't happen. I still think congress would be better with people who have better judgment and are more responsible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Only if they work double hard to oppose it now and push for withdrawal. Murtha
.enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, and now he has worked extra hard to oppose Bush and works on withdrawal issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Im not going to vote my own party out of office ....
Who will be left to take their place ?

Smarter people ? ... WILL they be smarter ? .... Guaranteed ?

We can always just give it back to the GOP and go home and beat our Democratic party representatives to death in our righteous ire .... right ? ... :sarcasm:

I WILL be voting to retain our Democratic Party members who support progressive policies, even those who voted, wrongly, for the IWR .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. Never EVER forget nor forgive
Their actions helped to concrete * place as King (though that status is crumbling now). Never in the history of our country has we struct first. The madman needed to start this war to further his power. WAR IS PEACE! He is scared to death that he is losing his war machine. He is trying frantically to feed it but the new Italian speaker will NOT have it!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. every one of these posts are too simplistic
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:31 PM by LSK
1. The vote was during a political climate that is different than today. Most of the country was still shell-shocked from 9/11.

2. Midterms were coming up in one month. According to "Fiasco" the vote was a foregone conclusion anyways.

3. The Bush admin gave Congress a highly edited NIE that tried to sell the war. The full NIE has to date not been released to the public.

4. The Resolution itself can be viewed as a leverage tool to force Saddam to allow inspectors back in. At the time of the vote there were no inspectors in Iraq.

5. There was a big intelligence black hole from 1998 to 2002.

6. Bush violated the IWR and gave almost no real reason to go in.

7. Perfectly good politicians and candidates have repeatedly apologized for voting for it (Cleland, Kerry, Edwards).

Each of these points is worthy of a long and detailed discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
48. a few issues....
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 05:34 PM by mike_c
1. The vote was during a political climate that is different than today. Most of the country was still shell-shocked from 9/11.

2. Midterms were coming up in one month. According to "Fiasco" the vote was a foregone conclusion anyways.


What about the dems (and one independent) who DID vote against the war? NOT one of them has ever suffered any political consequences for their oppostion to the IWR? Was their judgement bad in that climate you described? Events have not proven that to be correct-- on the contrary, the IWR has proven itself a millstone for those who supported it, not those who voted against it.

3. The Bush admin gave Congress a highly edited NIE that tried to sell the war. The full NIE has to date not been released to the public.

Yet the CIA was fully aware that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. and the members of the intelligence committees were privy to that info. And again, what about the ones who voted against the IWR? If there was documentation of any sort that Iraq was really a serious threat, WHAT WERE THEY THiNKING?

4. The Resolution itself can be viewed as a leverage tool to force Saddam to allow inspectors back in. At the time of the vote there were no inspectors in Iraq.

Although UNSCOM inspectors had not yet reentered Iraq, the Iraqis agreed to redemption of FULL, UNCONDITIONAL resumption of inspections in September 2002, nearly a month before the IWR was enacted. Furthermore, their absence in 2002 was because they were pulled out by the U.S. in 1998, not because Iraq had kicked them out. There was no reason whatsoever to "force" inspections-- notwithstanding the fact that Iraq had disarmed by the early or mid 1990s anyway, the inspectors' absence from Iraq from 1998-2002 was at the request of the U.S. gov't, not the Iraqi gov't.

5. There was a big intelligence black hole from 1998 to 2002.

Because the U.S. forced the withdrawal of the inspectors.

6. Bush violated the IWR and gave almost no real reason to go in.

The IWR give explicit authorization for any and all use of military force at the president's discretion under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The only way for Bush to "violate" the IWR was to have neglected to inform Congress within 48 hrs of the invasion. He informed them with a brief lettter that simply quoted the relevant instructions in the IWR itself. There was no violation.

7. Perfectly good politicians and candidates have repeatedly apologized for voting for it (Cleland, Kerry, Edwards).

As they should-- however, none have yet given a satisfactory explanation for their lapse of duty. An apology is not an explanation, nor is begging ignorance when their job is to make informed decisions on behalf of the nation. And again, what of those who voted against the IWR? They showed real courage. Is an apology after the war became a political hot potato equivalent to their courage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. Totally and completely unwarranted assuption that we would forgive
Had to go with Other because you gave no option for "Neither forgive nor forget."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bogus poll
Not many people seem to remember that the IWR wasn't a vote for the invasion, but was a vote to give Bush authority to invade AFTER he had exhausted all legal channels to bring Hussein into compliance. There were a lot of different reasons for this bill, and each senator had to decide their own justification for the bill. Before the bill passed, Bush was claiming he had full authority without consulting COngress or going to the UN. For some the bill was an attempt to limit Bush's power, for some it was an attempt to avert the invasion that we all knew Bush wanted, and for some it was a vote to go to war.

I respect those who voted against it much more than those who voted for it, but one has to understand that many people voted for this bill because in their minds it was the last chance to avert an invasion, not an authorization of the invasion. Bush was claiming he could invade without the bill. The IWR put restrictions on what Bush claimed he could do.

Contrast Hillary, for instance, whose speech before voting for the bill emphasized her hope that this would lead to peace, not war (very similar to the speech Wesley Clark gave before the Armed Services Committee recommending such a bill), to those on the Republican side who saw this bill as a chance to invade.

So, to answer your poll question, I judge each politician on their complete record twoards the invasion. The IWR was one part of that. I respect those who voted against it more than those who voted for it. But some saw the bill as a chance to avert the war, and said so at the time. They were fooled by Bush, so they stand lower in my opinion than those who voted against the Resolution. But they still stand higher than those who aggressively campaigned for the invasion, and how aggressively championed it after it happened.

ANd I respect those who have turned against it more than those who still support it.

Politics is a lousy place for absolutism. Absolutists on either side frighten me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. THANK YOU. These folks keep swallowing this media bait. Wasn't a vote for war...
Those who voted 'for' were trying to give W a bargaining chip at the UN that they hoped would spur the UN to do something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. To forgive is divine...to FORGET is suicidal.
"Forgiveness" is inherently dependent upon the recipient's
admission of ERROR;
and, as such, it anticipates that the recipient will:

A: Strive to avoid similar ERROR in the future
B: MAKE AMENDS for the past ERROR under discussion.

Both A and B require that the ERROR in question will
be REMEMBERED. Neither will ever happen if it is FORGOTTEN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. Forgive- don't forget, and DON'T let them anywhere near the 2008 nomination.
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 03:44 PM by impeachdubya
This time around, we need someone who has been clear and consistent on that from the get-go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. you need him to run
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yeah, I think he's the best choice by far for the job.
But even barring a Gore run, I think we absolutely need someone who can't have the albatross of the IWR vote and "I was for it before I was against it" hung around their neck- again. Needless to say, that leaves out Kerry, and it leaves out Edwards and HRC too.

Who is left? I don't think Obama is ready, but at least he wouldn't be shackled to an IWR vote. Wes Clark, perhaps. I'd like to see Russ Feingold get in the race. We have a lot of good Senators who saw clearly enough to not vote for that turd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Russ announced hes not running
Of who is officially running right now, I support Edwards but he voted for IWR and that makes him public enemy #1 to some here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. He's not public enemy #1 to me. I like the guy. But I forsee that vote being a BIG problem
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 04:06 PM by impeachdubya
for any nominee. That's not frothing at the mouth emotionalism, that's my rational analysis of the situation. The vote for the war was supposed to be a plus for Kerry in 2004, and it turned into the means through which his entire campaign was essentially rendered meaningless by the RW noise machine, from calling him a 'flip flopper' to saying "How can you run against Bush- and a war you yourself voted for?" Unless the situation regarding Iraq changes dramatically between now and then, I think Edwards will have a tough time getting around that kind of thing as well. Not as tough as Hillary, since he's done a better job of distancing himself since then, but tough nonetheless.

Of course, if things change significantly with Iraq... like (against all odds) Bush gets some sense and ends the entire clusterfuck, all bets are off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. I think that the main thing is to improve things for the future
We can't bring the dead alive, but further deaths may be prevented. Both by finding some workable exit plan from Iraq, and by remembering it as an object lesson: presidents can't be trusted with too much power!

Those who've changed their minds will be CRUCIAL in moving ahead, and changing things. Saying "Sorry, you're too late, we want nothing to do with you" would be just cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. In addition, while such bad judgement in the first place is a bad thing, a willingness to change one's mind and admit that one is wrong is a good thing - especially in a politician (or rather, the opposite is a BAD thing).

So yes, forgive in that sense. I don't believe in 'forgetting' anything about a politician, and would use this among many other things in making decisions about my preferences among politicians. But my harshest judgements are for those who still won't change their minds. Including our own lovely government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
25. what of the dems who voted against the IWR in 2002...?
How do we reward THEM for their political courage if it means nothing to us now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. It wasn't a vote for "war." That's media spin to split Democrats. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. of course it was-- it's the Iraq WAR Resolution of 2002...
...and it gives the president explicit authority for the use of force against Iraq under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Anyone who did not understand the authority they were granting has no business in Congress, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
30. No forgiving or forgetting
And these people should be removed and tried .

We were not attacked by Iraq and they never killed one american .

This of all things this is the one thing the dems who voted for this attack did know and nothing else matters , there is absolutely no excuse that any dem can toss out there that will ever erase this .

So they allowed this murder to happen , if they had not then if bush would have done it against their will he could have been stopped .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
32. Any person who voted for this war does not have good enough judgment
to be permitted to serve in public office in this country. Every single one of them should be voted out of office, regardless of party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. other here
Individually they should answer to their constituents. The nationalistic bent on the one correct answer is probably one of the reasons we are in this mess. Mostly it was not in most states interest to support any of the * and neocon agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
50. Whoa... Not that big a deal? I knew I was feeling a strange vibe on this site lately
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 05:51 PM by Truth Hurts A Lot
The emperors clothes are off and this new congress/Pelosi thing has exposed the wing of Dems who are mainly lip service but at the end of the day couldn't care less about holding Bush and others accountable for this war.

I forgive, because I don't hold grudges. But I will never forget and frankly, everyone who took part in making this war possible belongs in prison. How dare anyone suggest that the 1 million or so lives lost isn't that big a deal?! Wow!

ETA: I forgive Dems who voted that way due to cowardice and bad information, not never Bush&Co
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
52. Remember & watch.
Remember what they've done.

Watch what they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 11th 2017, 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC