New York Democrats who voted for Iraq war now seek to end it

[sabra]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--iraq-nydemocrats1207dec07,0,2700931.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

New York Democrats who voted for Iraq war now seek to end it


WASHINGTON -- New York Democrats who once supported the Iraq invasion now bitterly blame the Bush administration for their pro-war votes, and several are pushing in the opposite direction _ to bring troops home quickly.

The national debate over Iraq has intensified in recent weeks, with both parties feeling the pressure of growing public disillusionment. Democrats from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Rep. Michael McNulty of Green Island are trying to explain their 2002 votes for a war they now criticize.

"The president's mistake was giving us false information. Our mistake was believing him," McNulty said Wednesday. McNulty has joined a congressional Out of Iraq Caucus.

"I'm no pacifist, but I look at the casualties, and those aren't numbers to me. I know what it's like to sit at the kitchen table and have the military person tell you your loved one is dead," said McNulty, whose brother died in the Vietnam war.

[Yavin4]

1. To Paraphrase Morpheus from "The Matrix"

"They are starting to believe."

[MadisonProgressive]

2. Only the people from the 'Blue Pill' states!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. They didn't "vote for the war"!!! What is wrong with these media people???

[Toots]

4. let's analyze that okay

If they didn't vote for war but to give authority to Bush* to go to war then they voted for something that is unconstitutional. The US constitution is very explicit in that all powers to make war rest in the US Congress . If the US congress did not vote to authorize war then they voted to transfer a power vested to them by the US Constitution that can not be transferred. So either they acted unconstitutionally or they authorized war....:shrug: either way IMO they were wrong...

[heidler1]

5. That's what the little Byrd told me.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Did anyone actually "declare war" (other than spout crap about a

fictitious and illogical "war on terra")?

[Drum]

10. Yeah...this sticks in my craw....

I understood it to be a Congressional thing to declare war...and there IS some paperwork/debate/transparency to it that way...It's understood to be the will of the nation.

Oddly, I think there's more accountability in Congress declaring war---obviously there isn't any this way!

[regnaD kciN]

12. Okay, then how about this...?

They voted to give Bush permission to use military force in Iraq, at his own discretion, without having to seek further approval from Congress.

A blank check is a blank check, no matter whether it's written in blue or black ink. :grr:

[meow2u3]

7. Dems are wising up to the Bushco con game

They've realize they've been taken for a ride and are now calling the BCF on it.

I know it's tempting to blame the conned for having been deceived, but if we do blame the Dems, we'll have bought into the blame-the-victim mentality of criminals.

[GreenArrow]

8. they've realized the war on Iraq

isn't going as well as they expected, and now they are trying to cover their asses.

[teryang]

9. Exactly, if they were too stupid to see through it

...they are too stupid to be in office.

I don't believe this explanation at all. One only had to read the Iraq war resolution to see the cowardice and ass covering going. They knew damn well what they were doing.

[Cha]

11. They should have known

bushinc better than to know it would be a success..a lot of us did.

[regnaD kciN]

14. Exactly...

It's hard to believe that any of our legislators were so naive that they didn't see that Bush had a hard-on to invade Iraq practically from 9/11 (and probably before). The fact that the administration made so many charges that were promptly debunked (the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi government official, the alumnium tubes that "could only be used for nuclear weapons development," etc.), and which it then kept trotting out as "proof" anyway, should have made anyone with even a modicum of sense deeply suspicious on any justification presented by the administration without third-party evidence.

More likely, they figured that the war would be a quick victory, and that those who opposed it would be ridiculed in the post-triumph euphoria, and be vulnerable in the next election as "nervous Nellies" or "war wimps." Better to sacrifice a few hundred U.S. troops (and a few thousand Iraqi civilians) than their own political careers! :grr:

The only other possibility is that the vast majority of Democratic congresscritters were every bit as credulous as Britney "we should trust the President on everything" Spears. And, I ask you: do we really need a legislature full of Pop Tarts?

[Cha]

15. That's the impression I got

for the reason they voted for the IWR..they bought the "Quick Victory" Snake Oil!

They shoulda gone with the .."It was the Wrong thing to do so I'm going to go with my conscience Vote".. like a lot of them did...Here's a link to "the brave Senators"(as Democrats.com calls them)who voted "NO" and what some of them had to say.

http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

[VegasWolf]

13. Yes, but these Dems are still talking about success in Iraq, no time

table for withdrawal, no end game. It seems like they are simply posturing because a large number of Democrats are becoming more an more anti-war. We'll see.

Meanwhile, people die, lose limbs, become psychologically scarred for life. Time is not an option while politicans play games to keep their cushy lifestyles!