Dems, media, and Rope-a-dope.

[Ravy]

In all of the hoopla, we should remember that the Senate did not vote to go to war, so there were NO DEMOCRATS who voted to go to war.

They voted on a series of events that could lead to war, and (horrendously) gave up their power for voting for the war and placed that power into the hands of the president. The Dems who voted for it should be heavily criticized for this. However, don't forget to criticize the Republicans too.

Voting to return to the UN, put weapons inspectors back in Iraq, try to shore up international support, intensify our diplomatic efforts and to place the ultimate decision on military intervention in the hands of the president isn't "voting for the war".

*WE* at DU often fail to recognize this distinction, but it is an important one. It is also the failure to recognize this distinction that allows the media and the administration to throw the issue back in the Democratic party's lap.

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Very good point

I hope you don't get torn to bits for making it. :)

[seabeyond]

2. here here ravy, couldnt agree more. jsut allows bushco to win n/t

[tlcandie]

3. kicked and recommended!!

n/t

[AndyTiedye]

4. It Is Their Control of the Media That Allows They to Blame Democrats

for Bush**ler and Cheney's war.

[Ravy]

8. Yes, I know... but

They don't control DU, but I read it here a lot!

[mzmolly]

5. They voted to give Bush the authority to use diplomacy and war as a LAST

resort. But, Bush wanted war regardless.

[bvar22]

6. A clever rationalization to escape responsibility,

A Salve for the guilty conscience,
or Politically Expedient Rhetoric.

EACH and EVERY Senator who cast their vote that day understood EXACTLY what this vote was about. These are not stupid people.
We at DU knew EXACTLY what this vote was about.
Some Democrats who turned their backs on thousands of innocent Iraqis tried to Cover their ASS with parsed out caveats after the vote, but they KNEW this was about WAR when they cast the vote. Your rationalization dishonors those Democrats who STOOD UP against this misadministration!
Sen. Byrd, in his passionate speeches from the floor of the Senate before the vote made it perfectly clear that this was the same as a Declaration of War against Iraq!!!
There was NO uncertainity.

Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

This WAS called the Iraq War Resolution.
Why did some Democrats choose to Stand and Fight, while other chose to Go with the Political Flow?

[Ravy]

7. It is not dishonorable to tell the truth

I listened to much of the debate at the time, and that is just a mischaracterization of at least some of the Democrat's vote.

Take some time to read the some of the floor speeches. Clinton's and Kerry's are a good place to start.

They did not believe that war was the inevitable result of their vote.

They should have never left the decision on whether to go to war on the President, but they did.

Parroting the right-wing view that the Senators voted for war is not doing the progressives any good.

[bvar22]

11. If they did not believe that WAR

was the inevitable result of their vote, then they weren't paying attention, or lacked judgement.

Electing politicians who don't represent the PEOPLE, but prostrate themselves before the altar of the almighty Global Corporations doesn't do Progressives any good. Honoring and re-electing those who vote in our interests does!

The Dems who handed THAT argument to the Repubs are the ones who are responsible. If they had voted as an OPPOSITION Party, little george* wouldn't be able to smirk and say "The Dem's voted for it too!!!"
THAT is what the American electorate HEARS, not your too clever and and nuanced excuse.

[Ravy]

12. I have to disagree...

It is the people spinning it to fit their agenda who are handing him the sound bites.

It is just another attempt at misleading the American people and he should be called for it rather than us eating our own.

I fail to see why we should speculate on the motives of the Dems who voted for the resolution other than their stated ones.

Given hindsight, it was a bad vote. Had a different president without a seemingly hidden agenda (at the time) gone to the UN, got weapon inspectors in, accepted their findings or given Saddam the time to find asylum and left Iraq, then the vote today would have been widely viewed as the right one.

Bush wouldn't have ANY of that. He wanted the war.

[bvar22]

13. "Bush wouldn't have ANY of that. He wanted the war."

Painfully and frightfully obvious to ALL who were paying attention.

Bringing out the old "I (they) didn't really vote for the war" didn't work in '04, and is a waste of time now.
What IS working is "Yes, I voted for the WAR because bush* LIED, and ONLY because bush* LIED!".
Now that bush*s polls have fallen below 40%, some of the more opportunistic and Politically savvy Dems are starting to say that!...AND that is working.

"Because bush* LIED" should stay the focus. Explaining the nuances of the IRW should be avoided. It will only confuse most of the voters who don't have the time or passion to plumb the depths of the IRW.

Some Democrats took a principled stand before the WAR regardless of the political consequences.
Those Democrats should be honored for their commitment to just causes.
I will remember their principled stand.

I recommend several of Sen Byrd's and Sen Wellstone's speeches from the floor if you are interested in what really happened.

[Ravy]

16. I agree that Bush lied, but I also stand by my original post.

It is hard to find ANYTHING the administration is serving straight-up.

I think the Americans are cluing into the fact that everything that Bush says is spun to his advantage. It is his modus operandi.

Spinning this issue "Dems voted for war", "Dems saw all the same intelligence that I did", is demonstrating that he is, and always has, tried to manipulate the actual truth, EXACTLY as he did in presenting his war rationale to the Senate and American people.

I don't think we need to concede that when he says "Dems voted for the war" that he is telling the truth. He isn't.

Whether it "worked" in 2004 or not... He is still stretching and manipulating and he should be called on it every time he does it.

Besides, times are different now than they were when this point fell on deaf ears. Over half of the people believe now that Bush is dishonest. It is not a bad strategy to revisit all of his untruths, whether they were previously rejected or not.

*WE* have to be speculating to say, that in late 2002 the Democratic senators *knew* that their vote would (rather than could) result in the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. I just don't believe that to be true.

I am sure we agree on all of the major points, so you don't need to convince me of anything. Personally, I believe embargos are totally the wrong way to handle nations we are trying to influence towards a particular path.

I guess why I bring this up is that the media (at least that I watch) is starting to correct the thugs when they spout out something that is discredited already. That is new.

Matthews stopped JC Watts recently from claiming that a vast majority of Democrats voted with Bush. He has started correcting thugs that say that the dems saw the same intelligence. I would like to see him stop them also when they even mention that Dems "voted for war". It demonstrates graphically the same spin machine that was actually responsible for the war.

[annabanana]

9. This is, of course, the truth of the matter...

This is the correct answer to B*sh's big lie. Yet these assertions go unrefuted every day on TV. Why is no one (even the Dems that get interview time!) saying this.

Is the problem that it takes more than 3 words? Can no Democrats speak FAST ENOUGH to get this info out before they're interrupted?

[Ravy]

10. Yes, it needs a sexy title...

Like Bush's Big Lie... but that really applies to his entire term of office.

[RazzleDazzle]

14. Really good point really buried under an inadequate headline

I didn't think I was interested in this thread and passed it up a lot.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Technically Yes, Morally No

The writing was on the wall in October, 2002 that this regime was gonna go to war one way or the other. Democrats could go along or get steamrolled...being tatooed on the eve of an election as being "soft on terrorism" and "weak on defense". People were spoiling for a fight and weak-kneed Democrats caved.

We hoped boooosh would let the UN inspectors complete inspections and there were deadlines and other provisions in the IWR that were never met since the war made those provisions obsolete. It was a sad show for many Democrats who did cave in for politically expedient reasons.

The distinctions Democrats have failed to put across is that the military option wasn't the only one and to say it was all war or nothing is a dishonest argument. It also plays into the Repugnicans hands. The war was unnecessary...there was no imminent threat and "pre-emption" was immoral as it was enacted on phoney and contrived propaganda and "intel". This is more like "Wag the Dog" every day.