Of those DEMS seeking the Presidency - who voted NO or opposed the original IWR?

[RiverStone]

Here is a list so far - please correct if I left someone out:


Already declared: Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd, Clinton, Biden

Possibly will declare: Kerry, Clark, Sharpton

Wishful thinking: Gore (pleeeeeeeeze!)

* * * * * *

QUESTION: Of all the folks who have officially declared or are pondering a Pres run, which ones voted an unequivocal NO or stated the same in opposition to the IWR (Iraq War Resolution) back in October of 2002? :shrug:

[Justitia]

1. You forgot Biden. -eom

[RiverStone]

2. .

[RiverStone]

4. Added. Thanks .

Darn, thought I had them all. We could field a baseball team!

My apologies to Biden supporters...

[rep the dems]

16. I thought Biden voted for the IWR. nt

[Justitia]

21. He did, I was just pointing out his name was left off the list of candidates. -eom

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Kucinich voted no. Gore, Clark, and Obama made statements in oppositon

However I still contend that despite the fact that Gore, Obama, and Clark absolutely did the right thing in declaring opposition, there's more pressure when you are forced to actually vote up or down on the resolution as a member of congress.

Unfortunately there are no serious candidates for the presidency that voted no on the resolution. If Dennis Kucinich were a serious candidate he would do the work needed to build the necessary connections and hire the right people.

[AtomicKitten]

5. in the course of their job those that voted 'yes' buckled under the "pressure"

That matters.

The dead don't get do-overs and I would think the gravity of that particular vote and its implications (of which there are many) would exclude those that voted 'yes' from absolution regardless of how sincere their explanation is. Shamelessly stealing a line from FrenchieCat (:)), they aren't running for Best Apologist.

I suspect most of us are fully entrenched in our opinion of the IWR and I have no expectation that that will change.

[patrice]

6. Didn't Kerry vote No on 114?

It's likely that he would have voted with Kennedy who definitely did vote No on 114.

I have that list somewhere; I should look for it. . . .

Found it; no, Kerry voted yes.

[Critters2]

19. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it, remember?

Voted for the war, no on funding. And kept explaining it all through his campaign.

[FightingIrish]

7. The field will seem a lot less crowded if we simply disqualify

the candidates who only saw the Iraq invasion as a disaster once it was obvious to everyone. I will not vote for any candidate who did not have the courage to stand up to the Bush administration's preordained plan for preemptive war. Belated contrition is no substitute for getting right in the first place. I'll work hard for the Democratic nominee but I hope we can first cast aside those who enabled this horrible mistake. They played politics with American lives and they lost.

[patrice]

9. That's a fact.

Sorry to say, I feel I must agree with you. If "we" do anything else, they'll think they can do the same again, whenever they have a chance of getting away with it.

[Critters2]

20. Agreed. I hope we don't nominate an enabler, though. nt

[benny05]

8. Dennis is the only who voted no

Clark and Obama were not in the Senate in 2002.

[PresidentObama]

11. This is what burns me about Obama....

I like Obama. I really, really do. But people say over and over "but he wasn't for the war"

WELL, he wasn't in the Senate then. We DON'T know how he would have voted.

I'm just thankful he and the other Democratic candidates aren't in the Joe Lieberman mind set and know what a FAILURE this war is and we NEED a new and better direction--one that will get us out FAST!

[GreenArrow]

14. well, he'd not be against

putting Iran in its place if it gets too uppity, but to his credit, he did actually speak against the war at an ant-war rally, something exceedingly scarce amongst this crop of candidates.

[BluegrassDem]

15. Obama attended an anti-war really in 2002

Trust me, he would've voted against IWR if he were in the Senate. He said it was a "dumb war." He was against the war when it was fashionable to be for it. That's a man of integrity, vision, and judgment, just like Gore.

[FightingIrish]

10. Bookmark these for 2008 reference

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[AtomicKitten]

12. what is relevant about Gore, Obama and Clark

Some seem to think not being in the Senate at the time of the vote somehow discounts their opposition. In fact, it is MORE relevant because they came out AGAINST the war BEFORE it stared.

It's really swell that some of those that voted 'yes' are really, really, really sorry about that vote now, but that retraction comes AFTER THE 2004 ELECTION, after hundreds of thousands of people have died, and only when the polls make that retraction safe.
I'm not impressed.

I say kudos to those that came out AGAINST the war before it started .... WHEN IT MATTERED.

On edit: And hurray that Kucinich voted 'no.' He is a man of integrity and proof-positive that he was paying attention when others should have been.

[GreenArrow]

13. what's really fascinating

is how many of the nominal candidates (whether they voted or spoke against IWR or not) are willing to kick Iran's ass if it tries to get nyuclar pow'r.

Still, for my money, anyone who voted in favor of IWR can frankly go get fucked. That being said, American (regardless of party) foreign policy in the middle east has little positive to be said for it. It's been destructive, short-sided, murderous, false, and foolish, and it isn't likely to change.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Contrite]

18. I want to know who supports this

http://jones.house.gov/release.cfm?id=472

JONES INTRODUCES RESOLUTION REQUIRING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN

WASHINGTON, DC – Today Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) introduced H. J. Res. 14, a joint resolution concerning the use of force by the United States against Iran. The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran.

“Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran,” Jones said. “This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them.”

“One of the many lessons from our involvement in Iraq is that Congress needs to ask the right questions prior to exercising its Constitutional authority to approve the use of military force,” Jones said.

“It was for this same reason that, in 1999, I joined 25 members of Congress in going to the U.S. Supreme Court to compel President Clinton to follow the Constitution and halt U.S. military action in Yugoslavia unless Congress granted him the authority to use military force in that manner,” Jones said.

“If the President is contemplating committing our blood and treasure in another war, then he and his administration must make the case to Congress and the American people why it would be in the national security interests of the United States to engage militarily in Iran,” Jones said.

“If a military venture against Iran is necessary, it should be easily justifiable to Congress,” Jones said. “If no military action is contemplated, then there should be no objection to this commonsense resolution.”

For additional information or to schedule an interview with Congressman Walter B. Jones please contact Kathleen Joyce at [phone].