General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Hillary Bashing" [View all]mike_c
(37,058 posts)That narrative would make perfect sense, if not for the democratic party congress persons and senators who were not taken in by the bogus "evidence" and who did not suffer any political consequences for doing so-- both reasons cited by Clinton, Kerry, etc for their votes. Your assertion that no senators voted against the IWR is just simply wrong, as was pointed out in the other response. Here is the list of senators who voted NAY:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
Also, one republican and one independent senator: Sen. Chafee (R-RI) and Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).
Although your selective memory only referenced the senate, it is worth remembering that MOST democratic Representatives voted against the IWR (126 nays) and six republicans did too, as did independent Bernie Sanders from VT.
Finally, I take issue with your assertion that the IWR makes no difference in two years. The war against Iraq was a crime against humanity, for which the perpetrators and those who abetted them have never been held accountable. It will "mean a damned thing" until that accounting is completed, or until its authors burn in hell.
on edit: Oh, I see what you did. You tried to deflect the discussion by referencing the Afghanistan AUMF. I, and I presume the OP, are talking about the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, H.J.Res. 114.