On the Dems who voted for Iraq Resolution...

[mylye2222]

This is a though and painfull issue here.

But, folks, I was wondering....

Yes,, they were completly wrong in doing that. But as years has past, I am also conviced that Dem vote or not, Bushand co. were so in wish to do that, no matter if the congress had approved or not, they would have invaded Iraq anyway, no matters Congress outcome would have been. Don't you think to they were so determined to " finish Poppy Bush's job" they woiuld have just used supra presidential powers to reach their silly goal?

So, why endlessly continuing on this board, to trash each others on the " wo-were-the-trators-who-voted-war"?

[TexasTowelie]

1. I think that many of them voted for the resolution out of fear for their political careers.

The sentiment at the time being pushed by the Bush administration was that it would be unpatriotic not to support the president. There was so much propaganda at the time that some of those people who voted for the resolution would have lost in the next election.

Everyone makes mistakes and nearly all of those Democrats realize it and publicly apologized or shown remorse on that decision. If they have taken that step then I'm willing to forgive them. It's the people who still believe that decision was correct that I'm more concerned about and who need to voted out of office.

[mylye2222]

4. I do think that given of what we know all here on BushReich,

not only did they feared for their careers...but maybe for their life too!

[elleng]

2. Good point and,

to pat myself on the back, I have refrained for a long time from 'trashing' those here, and elsewhere among Democrats, now and then, who failed miserably to appreciate the strong, wise, and capable talents of General Wesley Clark, after some of us persuaded him to run for President. It still angers me, as does the failure of POTUS to enlist him in a significant role.

This will be out in October:

Don’t Wait for the Next War: Rethinking America’s Global Mission

Can America have a real national strategy and move forward together without the focus of war? In the twentieth century, America came together to become the "Arsenal of Democracy," and emerged from World War II as the greatest power in the world. We shaped a global civilization in our own values, first with international institutions and our allies, then triumphing over our long-term adversary, the Soviet Union to emerge as the world's lone superpower. But in losing our adversary, America's leadership has floundered. We have not replaced our post-World War II strategic vision with something appropriate for a postwar role. In Syria, and more broadly across the Middle East, bellicosity has not served us well and we look adrift in the face of that region’s turbulence. Guns and swords don’t seem to help.

America’s new challenges, global in scope, not amenable to military solutions, require intricate interdependence between government and the private sector. Terrorism, cybersecurity, financial system vulnerabilities, the rise of China, and accelerating climate change constitute a new class of national security challenges—and meeting these will require America to revisit hallowed mythologies and concert domestic and foreign policies in a way which has never before been achieved. All the resources are at hand, but will we have the vision and will to lead? Based on his experience at the highest levels in the military, politics and business, Wesley Clark offers a way forward, if only the American people will demand it of their elected leaders.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161039433X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

[el_bryanto]

3. I think a lot of the anger is that DU/war protesters were right, and other than Glenn Beck, nobody

has ever admitted it. The people who crafted the first Iraq war, despite having been so tragically wrong, are still treated as "grown-ups" when compared to those who opposed the war.

Bryant

[obxhead]

5. If everyone else is jumping off of a cliff

we should too right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Their argument that "they didn't know" or "didn't think that Bush was going to do it" is CYA writ large.

Did they think that the troops in Kuwait and the fleet offshore were there to improve their tans?


They are culpable.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Here's what I was thinking during the IWR vote...from another thread I posted this on.

I won't argue that Democrats didn't know that Iraq was well contained.

And weren't a threat to us or anyone in the region. It should have been a straight Party vote against the IWR. But if I recall, we still had not a public investigation into 9/11 nor had the anthrax perps been found. I further think many Democrats in Congress felt that this administration's willingness to ignore the warnings of 9/11 made them criminally liable for this dereliction of duty.

What if every Democrat had voted against this act? I'm betting another attack occurs shortly thereafter and the evidence this time implicates Iraq directly. Immediately, Bush, Cheney, and the neocon Wurlitzer go into ovrrdrive, demanding an immediate attack. But, equally important, Democrats are now framed as "IRAQI APPEASERS...a Party complicit in letting this happen. Democrats are completely taken out as an opposition party - Bush Cheney get their war and kill the Democratic Party in the process.

Call me a paranoid, but I think that administration had a plan for One Party rule to compliment their PNAC.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. You're saying:

1. Bush would have invaded anyway.

Therefore...

2. DEMs in congress who voted FOR the war resolution are as blameless as those who voted AGAINST the resolution.

Is that correct?