General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSadly, Democrats played a role
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sadly, Democrats played a role"
...it that whenever the focus turns squarely to Bush's crimes and illegal invasion, there is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism to Democrats?
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
Seriously?
Bush lied to Congress. Period!
Russ Feingold, October 09, 2002
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022538489
On the anniversary of the Iraq war: Bush lied.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to account for, nothing to reflect upon and vow to do better.
The Iraq war revealed a deep rot within the Democratic party.
Look at McCain's original Three Amigos--Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards--co-sponsors of the vote to go to war with Iraq.
And yeah, if we pajama-wearing Internet commenters knew that vote was a vote for a disastrous war, so did Senate Democrats who voted for it.
still_one
(98,883 posts)who thought it was the "safe" political move.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for President in either 2004 or 2008.
In 2008, even after it was clear it was a debacle, the only candidates who had taken affirmative stands against it were Kucinich and Obama. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden all voted for it.
still_one
(98,883 posts)diminish not only the Democratic party, but because of that war which killed a million people, and cost a trillion+ dollars, that money which was lost in the war, gave fodder to the republicans to argue we should cut entitlements, and I have very major concerns that those Democrats who did NOT have the courage to vote against the Iraq war, will have no problem compromising on social security and medicare
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That is one of the reasons I was adamant that Obama get the nomination in 2008--the party was long overdue to stop rewarding the institutional corruptocrats who supported war, death, and financial ruin.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....not a single Democrat who OPPOSED the invasion of Iraq,
or who voted NO on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
was appointed to a position of Authority or Power in the Obama Administration.
ONLY those Who-Got-It-WRONG were rewarded.
Odd, don't you think?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, rather dismal showing for the good guys.
On the other hand, maybe we're better off with them in Congress instead of the WH.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)There were massive demonstrations in both Boston and New York. Clinton and Kerry could have voted "no" without political penalty.
Another DUer (dflprincess) spoke to Sheila Wellstone at a fundraiser after the vote. She said that the Bush administration had worked overtime telling all the Senators who were up for re-election that their constituents would reject them if they didn't vote for the IWR. Paul Wellstone, of course, voted against it, but he was afraid that the Bushies were right, that the war enjoyed overwhelming support among the public. He was surprised and delighted when his poll numbers went UP after the vote and when people at the fundraiser gave him a rousing ovation. But he was willing to sacrifice his political career for what he believed to be right.
So basically, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and the rest, valued their own careers above the lives of millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, not to mention international law and the results of the Nuremberg Trials, in which "waging aggressive war" was one of the charges against the Nazis.
They were cowardly, selfish, and complicit.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...Wellstone and 29 other Senators, including Kerry, voted for the Durbin amendment. Clinton voted against it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
Why are people reluctant to accept that Bush lied?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)in Iraq or at least a resumption of WMD activities. This Resolution passed the Security Council unanimously within 72 hours of the Iraq War Resolution: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
When you read it, and note it was passed by the likes of Syria, Mauritania, China, Russia, etc., you realize that most of the world in November of 2002 believed that Saddam had WMD or was trying to create them.
That is why the world, yes the world wanted Weapons inspectors back in Iraq.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)Canada and France sensibly stayed out of it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Chirac issued an edict to prepare for war. Then, he backed off. There are disagreements as to why, but I think chief among those reasons are that the UN Weapons inspectors reports started to come in and they were not finding anything.
Chirac did what Blair and Bush SHOULD have done in the face of those reports. But again, you had to have the weapons inspectors IN Iraq to know that and getting them in required UN SEC Res 1441 and IWR.
That's why I say, everything up until the end of November 2002 by all sides in the US is understandable. What happened after that is the clear issue. With reports coming in from experts in finding weapons programs on the ground and not finding anything, the Bush admin took us to war anyway.
That's the issue. That is why I call it an unprovoked war of aggression and a war crime. But blame Democrats for the resolution that got the inspectors into Iraq in the first place? While the entire rest of the world wanted that too and believed the same things? When a 15-0 UN Security Council Resolution voted on by the kind of folks that often tell us to go jump in a lake said that Iraq definitively had these programs? Does that make sense to you?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The vast majority of conservatives I knew thought the war was a mistake at the time. Judging by what fellow DUers keep posting, I was beginning to think that I must have spent 2003 in Wonderland and failed to notice the trip.
Seeing that poll numbers went UP, not down, for those who voted against IWR makes me now wonder if so many of my fellow DUers didn't spend 2003 on a magical trip?
Those who were protesting I can understand. People don't like protestors. *I* didn't like the anti-war protestors. Even when people agree with the protestors, most people generally find protestors to be annoying and useless. Furthermore, if you're protesting something, you are obviously going to draw crowds of people who oppose you. I can see where they created a bubble which left them ignorant of the world outside the bubble where most people were against the war.
Others...? Some were in a military bubble. Some may have been in some area where the majority really were pro-war. Though I grew up in the Bible Belt near a large military installation where most of my relatives were employed, and even there most people thought going to war was a stupid mistake. A lot of them made a lot of overtime money off it, but that didn't stop them from thinking it was a really stupid idea.
Then I suppose there are those who like feeling like they were special. Or put upon. Politics seems to attract a lot of those.
And, of course, those who've fallen for the Rightist propaganda that "almost everyone was in favor of the war". Seems like a good place to include the point that even Liberals and Democrats who listen to Fox News are more misinformed than the average apolitical person who does not listen to FNC. We are not immune to the propaganda either. More resistant. But not immune.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)and did so thinking that it would cost him his reelection. He was the only Senator to vote against it that was in a neck in neck race the day of the vote.
Voting to amend it to apply only to an "imminent" threat might also have kept us from invading over the imaginary threat. Strange that Clinton would vote against limiting intervention to an imminent threat.
I don't know why, everytime Wellstone's name is mentioned, you try to find a way to criticize him. Probably because he didn't kowtow to the DLC/Third Way/ "New" Democrats (aka Old Republicans) that you seem to admire so much and, unlike that bunch, he tried to stand for something.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I don't know why, everytime Wellstone's name is mentioned, you try to find a way to criticize him. Probably because he didn't kowtow to the DLC/Third Way/ "New" Democrats (aka Old Republicans) that you seem to admire so much and, unlike that bunch, he tried to stand for something."
...know shit about me. I have been pointing out how various Democrats voted on the IWR bills for a long time. The fact that you're introducing a bullshit red herring about the DLC, an organization I despise, is telling.
You act like it's unusual to point out how someone voted, something that happens here daily.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)and I know that whenever Wellstone's IWR vote has come up - especially when it is compared to other Democrats who voted for the war - you try to find something snarky to say about him.
And when it comes to pointing out how someone voted, I was just mentioning that it is odd that Clinton would vote for the war, but against limiting military action to an actual threat. You, however, tried to act like her vote made sense and it was Wellstone and other anti-war Senators who sold out on that one.
Also surprising to hear you despise the DLC. Trying to pretend that the "new/Third Way" Democracts like Obama aren't really part of that old crowd? Can't wait to see how you spin it when he tries to sell out on Social Security.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I've been reading your posts for a long time and I know that whenever Wellstone's IWR vote has come up - especially when it is compared to other Democrats who voted for the war - you try to find something snarky to say about him."
...the hell are you talking about? I have pointed out how a lot of Democratic Senators voted on the bills.
"And when it comes to pointing out how someone voted, I was just mentioning that it is odd that Clinton would vote for the war, but against limiting military action to an actual threat. You, however, tried to act like her vote made sense and it was Wellstone and other anti-war Senators who sold out on that one. "
WTF? Where the hell did I mention Clinton? Dumb!
Maybe the problem is your imagination.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)"...Wellstone and 29 other Senators, including Kerry, voted for the Durbin amendment. Clinton voted against it."
That's where you mentioned Clinton. Perhaps you need to read your own posts so you can keep your stories straight.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's where you mentioned Clinton. Perhaps you need to read your own posts so you can keep your stories straight.
Ah, so I didn't mention Clinton in my response to you.
You claimed: "You, however, tried to act like her vote made sense"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2544687
Where on earth does my comment suggest any such thing? Maybe you shoud re-read my post and try to grasp the actual context.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)for the second time. He came to speak to our group prior to deployment as the vat majority of us came from MN. As he did previously, Sen. Wellstone impressed me with his bravery (to speak to military members about his opposition to war), his passion and most of all his integrity. Everything the man did was because he truly believed.
Though rightly or wrong we disagreed with his stance (not that we believed the WMD line either, but I cannot publicly elaborate) he won many votes due to his character. You could not help but respect a person who looked on his position as being a service to his constituents and the country with such deep conviction.
I never have met his equal among politicians. I miss Wellstone on a political and personal level.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Sigh...why can't we have THOSE Democrats running the country?
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)who cares too much for the interests of the average person. They don't bring in the corporate big bucks, you know.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There's an attempt to act as if the Democrats had nothing...Look at McCain's original Three Amigos--Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards--co-sponsors of the vote to go to war with Iraq."
...saying there weren't those who did want war (McCain and others damn sure did), but look at the quotes. Everyone quoted cited Saddam's WMD. That is the fault of Bush's lies, the bogus intelligence being fed to members of Congress. There is no getting around that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)were not a threat to hit the United States.
If you and I were smart enough to see through it, why weren't:
John Kerry
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Carper
Max Cleland
Evan Bayh
Tom Harkin
John Breaux
Mary Landrieu
Jean Carnahan
Max Baucus
Ben Nelson
Harry Reid
Chuck Schumer
Tom Daschle
Tim Johnson
Byron Dorgan
Maria Cantwell
Herb Kohl
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Oh please. Saddam's WMDs--even if they existed--were not a threat to hit the United States."
...said that in his 2003 speech, which was against the war.
Interestingly, this OP is from a RW site and the last Kerry quote is fabricated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2540714
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he was for it?
He voted for it, so his speeches to the contrary mean jack shit.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He voted for it, so his speeches to the contrary mean jack shit."
...Wellstone voted for Durbin's amendment. The fact that the bill that passed is the one used doens't mean "jack shit" if every Senator was spouting claims that Saddam had WMD, which is the point of the OP.
alp227
(33,282 posts)However Snopes.com doesn't address that fake "we have compelling evidence" insertion. Before that "second" part he said:
I think I gotta email the Snopes.com owner about that "compelling evidence" part.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Most of the world thought there was a good chance Iraq had WMD or WMD making programs in November of 2002.
It wasnt until the inspectors got back in and were finding NOTHING and Bushco wanted to go to war anyway that the full extent of the truth began to emerge.
Chirac had told his military as late as early January 2003 to prepare for war. Then the inspectors reports started filing in.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1) Saddam was interested in WMDs. If he didn't have them, he had the intent to develop them some day.
2) Saddam was utterly incapable of using WMDs against the United States.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I've been through the timeline literally hundreds of times. There are IMO three time periods to consider:
1. 1998-November 1 2002: Most of the world believes Saddam is producing and possesses WMD after the UN Weapons inspectors were kicked out and wants to do something to enforce those resolutions, get inspectors back in and prevent Iraq from having WMD.
2. November 1 2002 - Jan 1 2003: IWR vote and UN SEC RES 1441 vote http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf , Iraq accepts them both and allows weapons inspectors back into the country who arrive before the end of November and they begin their inspections.
3. Jan 2 2003 - March 7 2003: Weapons Inspector Reports flow in and no banned weapons are found. EVERY suspected site is searched at least once, some more than once. Nothing is found. The inspectors say they have no reason to think weapons are being moved around and they feel they are getting adequate cooperation, particularly by the end.
It is during period 3 that France changes their mind and decides not to become part of the war after seeming to be an enthusiastic supporter. It is also period 3 that shows what Bushco are really up to, the weapons inspectors and all of that have nothing to do with their plans, they were a smokescreen, one of many dishonest tactics they used.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Even if Saddam had mustard or sarin gas, that didn't come close to justifying an invasion.
Iraqis weren't capable of killing Americans until we put several hundred thousand in Iraq.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)place from the invasion of Kuwait. As would have non-compliance with UN SEC RES 1441, i.e. not allowing the weapons inspectors back into the country.
The international community decided that since Saddam engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression, there were certain things that he would never again be allowed to do. Pretty ironic since Bush did the same thing 11 years later.
What would I have thought? Well, I would not have been favor of war, but I would have understood folks who said that you cannot flaunt the edicts of the UN and International community. I probably would not have been out there protesting and definitely would not have written the kinds of things that I did about the war.
Fix The Stupid
(1,000 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"How could Bush's lies effect comments from 1998, 1999, 2000???"
The point is based on the events around 2002. Are you saying the Bush adminsitration didn't provide new faulty intelligence?
There was an Iraq war in the early 90s, Kerry voted against it. So it doesn't stand to reason that any comments not directly related to the events of 2002 apply.
Fix The Stupid
(1,000 posts)You stated this:
"..saying there weren't those who did want war (McCain and others damn sure did), but look at the quotes. Everyone quoted cited Saddam's WMD. That is the fault of Bush's lies, the bogus intelligence being fed to members of Congress. "
...in reply to the OP that had various quotes supporting the Irag WMD lies.
Some of the quotes PREDATE Bush's tenure as president.
How can those quotes from 1998-2000 be linked to "Bush's lies, the bogus intelligence being fed to members of congress"?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Some of the quotes PREDATE Bush's tenure as president."
...no bullshit. Quotes that predate the events of 2002, quotes from prior to Bush's Presidency, have nothing to do with the circumstances of the 2002 vote.
Fix The Stupid
(1,000 posts)"Quotes that predate the events of 2002, quotes from prior to Bush's Presidency, have nothing to do with the circumstances of the 2002 vote."
How can you say this with a straight face? Here are the quotes in question:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from , but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
This war-mongering and sword rattling was going on PRIOR to Bush's presidency. Agree or Disagree?
This is the point of the OP - that some Democrats are responsible for the Iraq war as well as the republicans. Read those quotes again. Are you saying that this war-mongering attitude, CLEARLY ON DISPLAY AND REFERENCED IN THE ABOVE QUOTES had absolutely no bearing on the democrats IWR vote? This is your position?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"How can you say this with a straight face? Here are the quotes in question: "
...I can very easily. I mean, what do the quotes you cite have to do with this:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush's 16 words still hotly debated
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/20/sprj.irq.wmd.investigation/
Bush lied.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
Fix The Stupid
(1,000 posts)Anything but directly answer any questions put forth eh?
I hope people reading this exchange see this for what its worth.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Advertisements aren't designed to be responsive.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You really need a crutch for your conspiracy theories, don't you?
"Advertisements aren't designed to be responsive. "
I notice you avoid the "advertisements" that destroy the bullshit noise.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022536814
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obfuscate, derail, change subject"
...you can identify bullshit. I mean, 1998 quotes in support of the IWR is in fact absurd.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is why the UN Security Council unanimously passed this: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
blm
(114,658 posts)ignored by Clinton administration? Even Kucinich signed on to the 1998 call for 'regime change' in Iraq that would have given Clinton the room to invade if he found it necessary.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)know for sure that it was the wrong decision to go in, at the time.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and to act like those were words in FAVOR of the invasion of Iraq
is highly dishonest.
Same with quoting Byrd.
Byrd who probably did more than any other Senator in attempting to stop the invasion. And his words would be cherry-picked to attempt to show Democratic complicity?
Bullshit on that.
That's not honest criticism, it is historical revisionism.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The larger point is that many Democrats whose vote counted didn't want a debate, they wanted a piece of the action.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I didn't check every quote."
...you didn't "check"?
You responded to my comment citing quotes by Kennedy and Byrd who voted against the IWR: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022540505#post1
I pointed out that Kerry's quote was fabricated and you didn't seem to care.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2540756
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sorry, but that's true.
blm
(114,658 posts)the WMDs (some of the failed operations suggest they did try) would be considered a dunce, too. If you knew Bush -Cheney were likely to plant WMDs and succeed.....then what?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The OP doesn't cite any authorities and doesn't have links.
still_one
(98,883 posts)In addition, those Democrats that voted for the IWR did NOT do their jobs. They were cowards, thinking that giving the authorization for the executive branch would absolve them of any negative consequences.
The excuse that bush lied just doesn't cut it, because there WAS ample news out there which contradicted it.
Yes, the bush administration and the republicans deserve most of the blame, but those Democrats that voted for it should also be held accountable.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No. The fact remains there was more than enough Democrats who knew it was B.S. and voted against it"
...as I always have, that's a bullshit point. Again look at the quotes in the OP. They include Democrats who voted against the IWR stating specifically that Saddam had WMD.
Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.
Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232
Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war. And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.
Bush lied.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)who weren't completely reliant on what Bush told them.
blm
(114,658 posts)Howard Dean:
'Pre-emption is not off the table' (Iowa City Press-Citizen)
'There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies.' (Face the Nation)
'(I) have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.' (Statement, March 17, 2003)
'I think Saddam must be disarmed.' (Associated Press)
'It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."'
Salon's summary of Dean's position: 'Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.'
'I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq.' (August 2003)
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)on the dissidents. How do you think this vote will go, I think about the same. What makes posters here think Democrats are all in "lock step"? There was so much BS surrounding the Iraq imbroglio there was very little "truth" anywhere to be found. Bush et al should have let Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors reach a conclusion, that would have been the prudent thing to do.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)They were out of power at the time and couldn't necessarily have done anything to stop it and I think that, while many of them did believe that he still had some biological/chemical weapons left over, I don't know that, had they been in charge at the time, if they would've passed the IWR and/or advocated for invasion. Notice too that when Clinton was in office, he didn't launch an invasion of Iraq nor did he advocate it (endorsing regime change is not the same as sending in our own troops to make it happen). I highly doubt that President Al Gore would've ordered it either, even if 9/11 still happened as there were no logical connections between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 even happened. 9/11 gave him the pretext he needed to convince people that it was a necessary response. Maybe Democrats should've made a bigger fuss about the endeavor but few them were strong advocates for invasion. Many were supportive of measures against SH but more sanguine about the idea of invasion and were more or less dragged along like the rest of us.
Bush, Cheney and the rest of the (mis-)administration OWN full responsibility for the invasion/occupation and everything that happened as a result. Let us never forget that!
George II
(67,782 posts)..............so why are they here in the first place?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)This is opportunistic drivel, and the opportunists love it.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Just like when reagan was preparing the nation for destruction, leading Democrats made it all possible.
Worse, most of them are still in power and would block justice.
That you can still try to excuse this global horror just because some of the guilty wear the team colors is inexcusable.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)that live in the real world and acknowledge reality? 
I loved my mother Prosense. She was hardly a saint.
"Perhaps because there are those of us that live in the real world and acknowledge reality?
..."acknowledge reality" and throw everyone quoted in the OP into this category:
The US Invasion of Iraq Was a Crime and Its Perpetrators Are Murderers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022541200
The reality is that Bush lied. The fact that statements supporting the claim that Saddam had WMD were made does not mean everyone was complicit. Bush wanted war, and he alone took the actions, lying and misleading everyone, about the situation. He launched the war even in the face of strong opposition.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Granted. I'm a dumb Minnesotan with access to the internet. I may have not heard the intelligence briefings but I can read. And dumb ole me never bought his bullshit for a second. So sorry, I cannot hold the Democrats blameless.
patrice
(47,992 posts)case are the usual suspects on the Right, plus neo-Liberals and what calls itself "the Left" which is in this for base-building AT ALL COSTS. Look at folks on this board defending the likes of Rand Paul and promoting his "attack" on Pro-Life as evidence that he is not the bad brand of Libertarian.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but high ranking Democrats in Washington were not?
Answer: because it was not politically expedient for them to see through Bush's lies. Their constituents back home were still riled up over 9/11 and had bought the lie that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it.
Many of us protested against the Iraq incursion, and many of us took this position based on information that was publicly available. We also recognized that a pre-emptive war is akin to arresting and executing people for pre-crimes, and is against the "quaint" Geneva Conventions.
The U.N. inspectors said there were no weapons of mass destruction. The yellowcake "purchase attempt" was shown to be a lie. It was known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and that he and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends. None of this was a secret, it was all public knowledge for those who were paying attention.
Yes, the Bush Administration engaged in a shameless propaganda campaign targeting a gullible public, and yes, the media printed the lies as fact and ignored the massive protests. But Washington politicians all know how this stuff works and they knew it was propaganda designed to beat the drums for war. They had much more opportunity to get factual information than most of us -- they have more access and they do have staff to help them with fact-finding.
What many Democratic politicians did is make a calculation: how will I look to my constituents if I vote against going into Iraq? Will I look weak and unpatriotic in this post-9/11, gung-ho environment? Also, even many who were dubious of Bush's claims, had a residual fear, what if something is found? Then how will I look? And lastly, they knew about the realpolitik calculations, e.g. the fact that Iraq was going off the dollar as its oil exchange currency. IOW, many of them recognized our invasion of Iraq as a cold, calculated policy decision. And they, like Bush et al, banked on an easy win. Oops.
But you go ahead and keep excusing complicit Democrats because they are Democrats. I don't care which of our highly respected leaders show up on the list of who voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq -- they were wrong. They were DEAD WRONG. They should have known better, and they should have voted otherwise for realistic, practical and moral reasons. That vote should cause each of them to cringe in shame.
Oh and yes: the Bush regime deserves the bulk of the blame. But two wrongs don't make a right. Those who had the power to do something to stop the illegal invasion of Iraq and did nothing, share the burden of guilt. They ignored all of us who got out there and demonstrated, even though we too were their constituents. And we were right, both factually and morally. So to hell with trying to excuse them. Any Democrat in Washington who hadn't figured out that the Bush administration was a giant lying machine was either asleep, stupid, expedient or absurdly gullible. And none of that reflects well on them.
..."know how this stuff works," and yet they were pushing the "propaganda." From the OP:
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
Those two Senators voted against the IWR, but they clearly were under the impression that the information about WMD was accurate.
I know nuance is hard for some, but context and intent actually matter.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...even though they appeared to buy the WMD lies.
So good on them for voting correctly, and bad on them for being gullible about WMD. Or by hedging their bets just in case WMD were actually found.
Who the hell knows what the real intent was with those words? To me, it reads more like CYA statements. To you, it sounds like they really believed what they were saying. As I said, they have more access to information than we do, and yet they bought the lie? Go figure.
Now we have to listen to other Important Democrats talking about Iran as if it is the most evil empire on the planet. It's all too, too familiar and it makes me ill.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's a reaction to posters like yourself, who constantly try to pretend it didn't happen."
...the "reaction" is to "pretend" that people who didn't support the war actually did?
It seems to me that some people just want to climb on the "I'm better than you" perch and fling. Can anyone look at Senator Harkin and actually claim he wanted war?
At least you admit the "reaction" is based on something completely unrelated to the facts of the situation.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)pretty quickly, for the most part. Not sure about Hillary Clinton, of course, but everyone else admitted they were wrong. The Repubs STILL won't--not publicly.
still_one
(98,883 posts)what is so frustrating about many of the Congressional Democrats, they do things for political expediency, and not because it is the right thing to do.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)how Senate votes work, actually. I lived in Nebraska, Ben Nelson voted yes. Nebraska is a conservative state, very pro-military, big air force base. He would have caught hell for voting no, and suffered politically. All the Pres wanna-be's voted yes, because they had a lot at stake, and betted the war (if one even occurred--it wasn't imminent yet) would be over quickly, like the first Gulf War. You can beat people up for bad decisions, but only for so long, if they sincerely atone for them and learn lessons.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What is missing in the rush to repair the image of the Yes voters is that it is culturally poisonous to reward mediocrity and punish excellence and to favor bad judgement over good.
Bad decisions that cause the death of others can be held against those making them for as long as the dead remain dead.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Losing elections is the punishment. Hillary lost the Presidency partly on her IWR decision. But none of those Senators were as responsible for the war as Bush and Co., who could have decided at any point after the IWR vote and further intelligence-gathering to stay out of Iraq. The majority of the blame still lies with the administration.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)is basically how they thought.
Pathetic.
They're not some lowly company employee who is afraid to be a whistleblower because they might lose a $30,000 salary and health insurance for a disabled spouse.
They're U.S. Senators, for heaven's sake. Have you ever heard of an impoverished ex-Senator?
"But we need Democratic Senators," you say.
Well if they don't oppose the Republicans, what good are they?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)of opposing Republicans (because that's what the GOP is doing today in their constant obstruction), any more than it should have been made on the basis of any kind of political calculation. Some of them might honestly have believed that national security issues were at stake, or worried about the Iraqi people or Israel's safety, regional stability, or whatever, and made their votes on that basis. That's why it's kind of unfair to impugn all of them as having made purely political decisions. The ones who had Presidential ambitions were the most concerned about politics, IMO.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)maybe they want to accomplish some good as Senators, things that cannot be done if they are defeated.
What good is a Democratic Senator who sometimes caves?
Take Daschle, (please). As Senate minority leader, he voted for the IWR. He was defeated in 2004 as Bush was re-elected. Thune was then re-elected in 2010 with NO opponent.
What good is Daschle? He's one hell of a lot better than Thune, I can guarantee that.
And then there's Feingold.
Yeah, what good is he? He didn't even vote against Roberts or Alito.
Off with his head! He's no better than Johnson!
Get rid of Max Baucus and give us another Orrin Hatch. What difference would it make?
Riiiiiiiggghhhttt.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)If they were replaced by Republicans, you'd hardly be able to tell based on their votes. (I'm looking at YOU, Colin Peterson, D-MN).
I can take a bit of deviation from the party line, but not on issues that have major moral and budget implications. This was one of the major turning-point issues of our lifetimes, and Dem Senators who voted for the IWR were either cowardly and more concerned about their own careers than the fate of two nations or too gullible for the job.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)What a defense.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)All the Democrats had to do was be as reasonable as we expect Democrats to be and they could easily have voted NO, but what did they do? They jumped on the War Wagon and helped push it over the edge. Saying it was "tough" is pure B.S.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)screw them
blm
(114,658 posts)be needed, Kerry stood with weapon inspectors and said Bush should NOT go to war. He was the only IWR voter who followed through on his promise to oppose invasion based on findings of weapon inspectors. A position he took a lot of heat for from pro-war and anti-war sides who refused to show discernment.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush's tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-646435.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Being 'for it before he was against it' is not a virtue. It's talking out of both sides of his mouth"
Yeah, spew RW bullshit when all it takes is a little common sense to understand that there were two different votes.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Duplicity is no virtue, and Kerry was rightly skewered for his attempt to play both sides of the issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Kerry voted to support George Bush's war. He couldn't alter that with a pivot a year later."
That's pure bullshit, and Kerry spoke out against Bush going to war even as the vote was taking place.
On the anniversary of the Iraq war: Bush lied.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
blm
(114,658 posts)has rendered you incapable of comprehension or discernment, Romulox?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)You don't show any ability to comprehend his actual position. In your chosen view Kerry was 'pro-war' just as Hillary, Lieberman and Biden were, while I note with ACCURACY that his position was pro-let's get weapon inspectors in and support their findings. Kerry followed through and publicly sided with weapon inspectors. You refuse to accept the accurate depiction of what occurred. It's easier for lazy thinkers to lump everyone together - none of that pesky discernment from you, eh Romulox?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)lived up to his promise to oppose any decision to invade if the weapon inspectors proved force was not needed. And you can't stand that he stuck to that promise and took the hits from both sides.
You prove in every post that you choose to not use discernment.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I guess the fact that John Kerry will never be President will be enough to rebuke him. Your blind support of the man is how the echo chamber is formed, and likely why Kerry feels it is so "clever" to argue two sides of an issue.
blm
(114,658 posts)over Bush because you have NO sense of discernment. And your ability to comprehend is on life support at this point.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)You can't admit that he did so because you've invested yourself in believing the IWR forced this nation to go to war, when it did NOT. The decision was Bush's to use force to defend the nation from a determined threat. There WAS NO THREAT as per weapon inspectors, so Bush went against the guidelines of IWR. Kerry publicly sided with weapon inspectors and against Bush's DECISION to go to war.
Those are the facts. Some people can only wrap their brains around the shorthand version of events at the time...the shorthand version preferred by the lazy minded who have never shown any sense of discernment.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts).
Romulox
(25,960 posts)What a ridiculous attempt at misdirection. 
blm
(114,658 posts)his support would be based on those findings.
He sided with weapon inspectors against decision to invade, and did so very PUBLICLY just as he said he would. No other IWR voter followed through on linking their vote with weapon inspectors - Kerry did.
There is no misdirection....You failed to use discernment, just as Rove expected from you.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Again, your patient explanations as to John Kerry's "promise" to have things both ways don't help defend against the charge of two-facedness.
Right, and those who fail to see the emperor's new clothes simply lack taste and refinement.
blm
(114,658 posts)UN resolution giving him legal cover as Blair wanted, but, Rove wanted to politically divide Dems before the Nov2002 election.
Why do you attack all IWR voters as equal? Why is it when a lone IWR voter agreed publicly with weapon inspectors over the Bush WH, you still want to claim he sided with Bush's decision to invade?
dis·cern (d-sûrn, -zûrn)
v. dis·cerned, dis·cern·ing, dis·cerns
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect.
2. To recognize or comprehend mentally.
3. To perceive or recognize as being different or distinct; distinguish. See Synonyms at see1.
v.intr.
To perceive differences.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Bush was going in anyway and 1991 UN Res gave him cover. Kerry's IWR vote should have forced corpmedia to give greater notice and weight to findings from weapon inspections when he publicly sided with weapon inspectors and against Bush.
No discernment from you, eh Romulox? Kerry can take your slings and arrows - he's used to it from the last 5 decades of actually TRYING to do what is right and making a positive difference instead of being just a backseat driver afraid of taking the wheel.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)And John Kerry got the War he voted for. That his advocacy for war became unpopular later cannot change history.
Perhaps John Kerry could'v introduced a bill to that effect; as it stood, he handed Bush a blank check for war, and then tried to disavow the vote when it became clear it hurt his chance at the Presidency.
It didn't work. It hasn't worked. And it won't work.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Perhaps John Kerry could'v introduced a bill to that effect"
...Kerry-Feingold, which would have ended the war in five years ago, got 13 votes.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That's how 'voting' works. Pity John Kerry voted for the IWR, which passed!"
...else "voting works"? Had more people voted for Kerry in 2004, the war would have ended seven years ago.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Maybe he wouldn't have needed to vote to end a war if he hadn't helped start it?
"Maybe he wouldn't have needed to vote to end a war if he hadn't helped start it?"
...did he help "start it"?
Did he provide Bush with the lies and faulty intelligence that he fed to Congress and the American people? Did he tell Bush to kick the inspectors out of Iraq and skip diplomacy? Did he tell Bush to launch the invasion?
Explain how Kerry "helped start it."
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)because you choose to live in a world where discernment doesn't exist. Not much different from TeaParty crowd.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)going with your stubborn refusal to adjust to all the facts as they occurred.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)far more character and integrity on that IWR vote and followed through on his promise to oppose any unneeded use of force after weapon inspections. He was the only IWR voter to do so.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
...where did you get that Kerry quote? Kerry has never said that.
From Kerry's January 23, 2003 speech, which was arguing against the war:
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
The OP appears to be a direct reprint from this site: http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-the-bush-administration-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/
The portion of the quote is attributed to Kerry in the OP is, according to the site, from Bob Graham:
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)So, no, it's not a "direct reprint". But it does appear the quote belongs to Graham.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's not "very different," and why are you attributing Graham's quote to Kerry?
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)And yes, your source is a lot different. Contains a number of different quotes. No idea how anyone could think that's a "direct reprint".
ProSense
(116,464 posts)michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Not mine. The quote wasn't fabricated, just confusion over whether it's Kerry or Graham. It doesn't change what all these Democrats were saying. The inescapable fact is a lot of prominent ones went along.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)There is no confusion. It's not Kerry's and it's still in the OP despite your acknowledging that it isn't his.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)and you're reduced to haggling over who said one of them. Pretty sad.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There are a dozen and a half quotes from prominent Democrats and you're reduced to haggling over who said one of them. Pretty sad."
...that you think falsely attributing a quote to someone is no biggy, but to claim that pointing that out is "haggling over who said one of them" is pathetic.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Post 115 indicates it was Kerry. You're flatly stating it wasn't, using rightwingnews as a source. I'll see your rightwingnews and raise you a Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Post 115 indicates it was Kerry. You're flatly stating it wasn't, using rightwingnews as a source. I'll see your rightwingnews and raise you a Snopes."
No, post 115 doesn't deal with the fabricated part of the quote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2542291
As for Snopes, the quotes are the subject, and in response it's noted that they're "truncated, and context is provided for none of them" and that "several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S."
The cite from the Kerry's speech does not include the portion of the quote in the OP. Snopes:
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after <NOBR>September 11th,</NOBR> when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
That is exactly the text from Kerry's speech, which I cited with a link to the speech here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2540714
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)But you sourced rightwingnews to assert it was Graham. What happened to that?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But you sourced rightwingnews to assert it was Graham. What happened to that? "
...I agree with Kerry, and your quote is still fabricated. Snopes is into debunking RW and bogus claims. It's highly likely the source of the quotes were RW sites. Instead of picking up the actual statements from Snopes, you copied the quotes that the site characterized as "truncated, and context is provided for none of them" and that "several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S."
You posted a quotes that Snope indicated were clearly made in the context of being against the war in a thread titled: "Sadly, Democrats played a role."
Your OP is disingenuous bullshit on par with RW distortions.
patrice
(47,992 posts)all of this hatred of the Catholic church coming from what calls itself "the Left" coinciding with attacks upon Pope Francis for being friends with a certain Liberal Jewish Rabbi who defends homosexual marriage combined with hate-the-scocialists memes.
Whether what calls itself "the Left" intends that synchrony or not, it would be profoundly STUPID and worthy of all others abandoning their misguided ir-responsible efforts if what calls itself "the Left" doesn't at least recognize the HELP they are giving the enemies of social and economic justice.
It's all the flip-side of the same critique that you level at the Democrats in OP, only it's you and what calls itself "the Left" who is doing it and one can see that by reading right wing sources. Only propagandists would want to prevent people from becoming fully informed on all of the "different" perspective out there.
Do you realize that you appear to be a propagandist by opposing FREEDOM of information?
But then, I suppose we need a new category to add to:
- It's Okay If You Are A Republican &
- It's Okay If You Are A Democrat,
we also need:
- It's Okay If You Are On What Calls Itself "the Left".
djean111
(14,255 posts)The world has changed since that WMD vote.
And will change again, I am afraid, before 2016.
That vote will not be any sort of factor in who I decide to throw my (teensy tiny) support behind for president.
(That sentence looks wrong to me, but I don't have time to parse it, so forgive me if the grammar is horrible, but you can certainly see my intent.)
Every time I see this stuff pop up, I just think oh, anti-Hillary with a slop of GOP apology thrown on top for garnish. Nothing new there.
I'll wait to see the actual field of wanna-be's before I make a decision. That decision will be based on who I think can beat the GOP.
Learned to not base it on what an individual candidate says or promises.
I do hate for anyone to be sad, though! Just look forward!
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[1] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present.[2][3]
The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.
Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661.[4] After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[5][6] The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[4]
DID YOU NOTICE that Clinton, Gore, Kerry DID NOT invade and occupy Iraq, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and TRILLIONS of US dollars (6 trillion at last estimate) in order to contain Saddam Hussein?
They knew it was not necessary.
Why?
The sanctions WORKED.
Bytheway WHERE are the alleged WMD that bu$h insisted we needed to invade and occupy Iraq to get our hands on? Even the idiot "news" media now admits there were none.
LIES. A ginned-up goddamned war for NOTHING.
STUPID - they believed idiots like "Curveball"
• • •
What happens when you have an idiot frat boy in charge who got into office (and everywhere else in life) on his Daddy's name and the ruling of five politicians on a clown court, effectively disenfranchising every vote in the nation except theirs? THIS....
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
pansypoo53219
(23,034 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)there would have been no invasion and most likely no need, real or perceived, to "look forward" and pretend that past crimes were not committed. Remember that this happened going into election season, had these traitors stood by the principles of this party, shrub would have had his legs cut out from under him and been shown for the fool he is.
Most of the collaborators have since expressed regret at going along with this needless slaughter, however neither Clinton nor Biden are among them.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I've long wondered if that didn't play a role in why impeachment was taken off the table by Pelosi, because of the pox on both their houses, even though the repubs had the lions share of the blame, starting here.
"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq"
George II
(67,782 posts).........should read the document for which they all voted.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)That One?
Anybody, ANYBODY who later claimed that "Bush Fooled Me"
is either:
1)An Idiot
or
2) a Liar
or
3) A combination of A & B.
George II
(67,782 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and, sadly, they were too lazy to look things up.
We KNEW the war was bogus here on DU before it happened? Why? Because WE were listening to the weapons inspectors (i.e. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, among others). They were telling the world that there were no WMD's. WE were listening. Sadly, many Dems weren't.
FiggyJay
(55 posts)I marched with thousands of everyday people who did their homework and saw that the whole thing was a farce. Where were our Democratic leaders? Were they uninformed, dumb or scared?
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)They didn't even pay attention to the massive anti-war demonstrations that were happening in their own cities.
To their credit, the entire Democratic delegation in Oregon voted against it.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Just kidding--he used his powerful committee position in order to be just another Iraq War enabler.
patrice
(47,992 posts)very interesting given that he's a subject-matter-expert on money laundering, so who exactly does he think are the candidates for those detention camps?
I have no real idea what all of this means, other than corporate personhood has set some REAL freaky stuff loose.
valerief
(53,235 posts)They knew a "new Pearl Harbor" had occurred for the PNACers.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Party has nothing to do with it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)ALREADY attacked Iraq and put troops on the ground. The IWR vote was an afterthought and sadly some of our party decided it was a safe bet. They were wrong.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Democrats were as guilty as Republicans.
All the Congressional comments in the late 1990s were made when there was a resolution that stopped short of speaking of a US attack. Saying that Saddam was guilty of crimes is NOT equivalent to starting a war. This resolution in fact may have made it harder for Democrats to vote no on the IWR if they voted for this when Clinton was President.
Another thing that is done is that they ignore what was known in October 2002 - when inspectors had not been there for 4 years - and March 2003 - after the inspectors were in for 5 months. It did NOT require certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to vote yes. The intelligence presented just had to show they were a reasonable possibility. The problem with the IWR was not that, but that it prematurely gave Bush approval to go to war IF necessary -- and there were no teeth to the provisions under which it was approved.
The last one by Kerry was part of a speech that when covered - and the coverage was meager - was that he said that the US should not rush to war. In fact, that quoted part of the speech was where he was agreeing that there was a need for the invasive inspections and holding Saddam accountable --- it was followed by him saying that there was still diplomatic opportunities and that the inspections should be allowed to continue. He said that we should not rush to war and he said that if we did at this point it would not be a war of last resort. (The latter are strong words from a practicing Catholic said at Georgetown University - a Jesuit college. They mean it would not be a just war.)
As to his IWR speech, the reason his quote is so short is that the part before that lists the steps Bush publicly he would take if given the authorization. Kerry then said that if he did not do these things, he would speak out -- which he did.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)and make them accountable for Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I cringed in SHAME every time he looked into the cameras and smirked,
[font size=3]"The Democrats voted for it too!!!"[/font]
While many progressive Democrats opposed the Invasion and had the integrity to STAND with their VOTE,
too many Centrist Democrats did indeed support the Invasion of Iraq.
Enough supported the Invasion that it was, in reality, a bi-partisan Invasion.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic party could honestly claim that they, as a Party, OPPOSED the insanity of Iraq?
karynnj
(60,968 posts)The vote was in October 2002 -- the invasion was in March 2003.
In between there were INVASIVE inspections in Iraq and Saddam was complying. Had there been a vote in February, it would have been very different. Bush also said in Cincinnati a few weeks before the vote that " it was not a vote for war".
This (plus your comment) is why they should never have agreed to a resolution that gave approval before there was clear reason to do so - and some, including Kerry, said that they were NOT convinced there was justification in October. In March, there was LESS, not more.
Your comment does sum up why it was a bad idea - not because it made war more likely, but because it was used too call Democrats complicit.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Wasn't there a concernted effort on the part of Republicans to do so - I think in late 2005. Suddenly the right radio and people like Cheney were quoting all these people. I remember that several Democrats countered it. (I believe Kerry did on the Senate floor - going through the time line.) To me, it was an UNSTATED admission on the part of the right that they were wrong - why else "give credit" to the Democrats.
greenman3610
(3,959 posts)Gore gave a widely covered tubthumper of a speech in fall of 2002 predicting a disaster if we went to war, and he took huge heat for it in the media.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I would like to add it to my collection
of Democratic Officials who vocally OPPOSED the Invasion of Iraq.
Senator Robert Byrd gave a well remembered speech,
and Dennis Kucinich was very outspoken.
Paul Wellstone made a very public vote against the IWR,
and 21 Democratic Senators and 126 Democratic Representatives voted "NO"
on the Authorization to Use Force,
but very few either:
1)Made it in front of the TV cameras to voice their opposition
OR
2)Were censored by the Pro-WAR Media at that time.
I am collecting information on those Democrats who took a Public Stand AGAINST the Invasion of Iraq,
and there is not much out there.
It doesn't appear that ANY Democrats made an appearance at ANY Public Protest against the Invasion.
(Possible Exception: John Conyers, but I lack the documentation).
Thank You.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Leaving aside their justifications for why how they thought whatever they thought about it, there'd be something like 3 general decision sets:
1. They didn't think there was an authentic threat, but they went along because they were afraid of the political threat to their other deliverables.
2. They thought the possibility of threat was "high enough" that the U.S. or one of its allies, such as Israel, was in danger and they wouldn't take the political risk of being wrong about that.
3. They thought the probability of danger was indeterminate, so they passed the buck for the decision to the political tides of the Bush administration.
What do you think the distribution of these three positions was within the group you cite? My guess is that there was an acute skew away from #2 even though that is the most justifiable of the three. And though both 1. and 3. are political solutions, that is at least theoretically a reflection of the will of the people, which brings me to my point about how people making these kinds of votes ascertain what the will of the people is.
For example: A documentary about Evangelical End Timers, called Waiting for Armageddon, was posted to this board last fall and, since, removed from Youtube. It mentioned a Christian phone-bank consisting of nearly 100K phone calls that were delivered when George Bush said something that didn't meet their standards for the security of Israel.
What is the accountability here? Other than the BUSINESS of polling, how does "our" "representation" read the will of the people? How do they evaluate all of the phone calls, letters, emails, and petitions relative to a their vote on legislation? How do they feed that information, acquired from the people and representing the people's will in a matter, back to the people, so we can see OUR input relative to the votes that they make?
No matter what party gets into power, even reformists and revolutionaries, unless we address these questions, we will ALWAYS have the problem that "our" "representation" appears to be pretty guarded about how they decide what they decide when they vote, even though they are collecting at least some input about those decisions, but appear to be making no use of any of it, except that coming from BIG MONEY donors.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)they were getting inundated with telegrams in support of Oliver North.
If they had been a bit more aware, they would have know that Western Union was ADVERTISING a significant discount for people who wanted to send a telegram in support of North.
patrice
(47,992 posts)significantly improved over these last 10 years.
Simple "yes" or "no" tallies, like staffers are probably doing when you make a phone call, just don't cut it any more.
This kind of information has many traits that directly represent the responses of the voting electorate, but it's basically being treated as though it doesn't exist.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that letters to Congress were being impounded and held for inspection for months? Wonder where all those letters went that were impounded? And, for how long? Yet we were told that the Congresscritters would pay more attention to personal letters than phone calls or e-mails because those could be coordinated. Then the petitions from MoveOn...(well Conyers did finally hold hearings in the Basement and Barbara Boxer even showed up) ....but after that the Petitions went nowhere or were acknowledged but never acted on.
We never built strong Democratic Pacs because organized "Labor" was our counter to what the RW was building. However, with the DLC we managed to get Wall Street and Hollywood money on our side and now we have Wall Street, Hollywood, much of Silicon Valley Tech interests and Banking as our Dem Political backers. Dem Party becomes party supporting Big Business and the RW the Conservative Religious Party of the "people" (the TeaParty/baggers) who "think" they are the people. Meanwhile Repugs have PAC Backing plus the Think Tanks and Petersen Foundation, ALEC and KOCH Bros. Anyway...sort of a switcheroo going on that the public is just starting to wake up to. Nothing is quite what it seems...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)the first day they started talking about it. But with the lone exception of Representative Lee, they went right along with it because none would risk political position for principle.
Absolutely shameful.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Barbara Lee (Bless her!) was the only one who voted "NO" on the Invasion & Occupation of Afghanistan.
I, and a few other DUers at that time, OPPOSED a Military Response to the criminal act of a dozen Saudis hiding in the Afghan deserts, but we were a distinct minority, even on DU who felt that a military attack on Afghanistan was justified.
I had an early post on DU that stated that we should "Drop Big Macs instead of Bombs", and let International Law Enforcement deal with the small band of Saudi criminals.
Seal Team 6 later proved me right.
Many Progressive Democrats voted "NO" on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq,
though all the "centrists" and Celebrity Democrats supported it.
Even though many Democrats OPPOSED it, few were vocal in their opposition,
except Robert Byrd and Dennis Kucinich,
and NONE made an appearance at ANY War Protest prior to the Invasion.
(Possible exception: John Conyers, Kucinich, though very difficult to document.)
Throughout the WAR, very Few to NONE Democrats showed up to publicly support ANY War Protest.
[font size=4]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.
The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
United States Senate
In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
United States House of Representatives
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:
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)
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)
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)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
Some Democrats who voted FOR the Invasion later changed their minds and apologized.
John Kerry did so, but maintained that the idiot Bush was smarter than him, and fooled him.
Other Democrats continue to insist that their vote was the right vote,
and have never recanted or apologized for helping to destroy Iraq and killd hundred of thousands of people who had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
Hillary Clinton is one of those.
No Democrat who OPPOSED the Invasion of Iraq
was appointed to a position of authority or power in the Obama Administration.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Some Democrats who voted FOR the Invasion later changed their minds and apologized.
John Kerry did so, but maintained that the idiot Bush was smarter than him, and fooled him."
...that's a silly comment, especially given the OP. Bush being a liar doesn't have anything to do with being "smarter."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
Feingold's statement clearly shows that Bush wasn't "smarter," just a liar:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022538489
"No Democrat who OPPOSED the Invasion of Iraq
was appointed to a position of authority or power in the Obama Administration. "
He could have appointed Corzine to head something. Kent Conrad to head the OMB? Carl Levin to Defense?
I'm sure you'd have cheered such appointments.
Kennedy endorsed the President, and worked until his death to help pass health care reform.
Did Bush-the-Lesser fool you too?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the Kennedy-Byrd debates which were HUGE on DU where we were glued to C-Span and many of us posted in long running threads so that DU'ers who couldn't watch would know what was going on. We watched the vote come in and did running thread...
and I was one who participated in those running threads along with other DU'ers --- a few who are still here but don't post much anymore and others who are have passed on into the great beyond. 
Those debates were incredible. Just wanted you to know that at one time there was much interest here. Then a bunch of people got disgusted with A.N.S.W.E.R and United for Peach and Justice organizing the huge rallies and started to post against those rallies and the DU'ers who mentioned them here. the Push Back had begun on those of us who didn't support either invasion and occupation.
Anyway 
gulliver
(13,985 posts)"Democrats played a role." That's Guinness Book record territory for weasel wording. It would make a Republican proud. And God knows they need something after they voted for and gushed over George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for eight years while they ruined the country.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)We're supposed to take YOUR word that all those things were said? (most of which are benign and have nothing to do with the Iraq War, BTW.)
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)on the need to remove Saddam and invade Iraq, gave speeches, wrote editorials etc. and yet so many supported him as a candidate in 2008 because he was a more "acceptable liberal" candidate.
What a waste and diversion from the real issues, how many times do you have to be wrong to think there is a problem.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)two charming little kids, a lovely older daughter and a son who had died tragically. He was picture book looking for a new Kennedy. However, his character was weak even though his message of "Two Americas" proved to be ahead of it's time. But, John Kerry was "owed" the chance and had that good "Out of Vietnam" background so what could go wrong?
We Dems finally got it correct with our current President and his lovely wife and family.
But maybe we need to look further than "image" and "message marketing" next time ...although that's still what sells. Repugs tried it but they got the "image" all wrong and couldn't even find a "message" that would appeal to anyone but the basest of our electorate....