Why so many liberals voted for the War Powers act...

[Jackpine Radical]

It has bothered me ever since it happened, but I think I may haqve finally gotten some insight into why so many rolled over for Bush.

Congresscritters have what they presume to be better information than we plebeians do. They get all these intelligence briefings etc., to which we aren't privy. They naturally assume that they therefore have a better grasp on reality than ordinary folks. This goes with the territory when you have all these spooks with their charts & graphs coming around once a week or so to givfe you the latest classified scoop from the satellites, etc. You end up feeling important, privileged, and imbued with special knowledge and wisdom.

In this case, they were very, very wrong because they were being fed bogus "insider information" by OSP & the Bushies in general, butr there was intense pressure at a conscious and unconscious level to believe what they were told. The special access to information made them special, and the specialness fed their egos.

We, on the other hand, with our grubby little internet connections, were busy digging through sources that Congresscritters and their aides wouldn't even deign to read. The cumulative information processing power of the internet beat the OSP all hollow. We knew what was happening, Congress didn't.

I remember when my wife confronted a Wisconsin Congressman, a Democrat, on his war vote. He exactly typified what I'm talking about here. He dismissed her objections to the invasion as based on what he called "an internet theory" (clearly synonymous with "crackpot theory"), and implied that is she knew what was really happening she would be supporting his decision.

[Bandit]

1. I don't mind them authorizing the administration to use military force

What I do object to strenuously is the lack of oversight and follow-up. If as it appears to be turning out that all was not as stated then Congress should put a stop to it immediately. It is the continued irresponsibility of Congress that I find appalling. War is the sole responsibility of Congress and they are negligent in that responsibility.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Your point is well-taken.

[seabeyond]

3. also have to remember

just a mere couple years ago the grip bush and co. had on all balls........he had 89% of the people in the country supporting him. people couldnt say anything about bush or the country without being unpatriotic ect.......we the people fed this. it was truly an odd time, adn though we would want a condidate strong enough to say no, the reality was, we didnt allow them to. and i remember back then, the ones voting conditioned their vote as loud as they could

[Jackpine Radical]

5. ...but now, some are using the war vote

as a litmus test for their candidates. Maybe there would be a lot fewer Democrats in Congress after 2002 if more had voted against the war? Maybe it was a judicious bit of survivalism for which we should be grateful?

[FloridaPat]

Bush was suppose to report back to Congress before he

invaded. He did that 3 hours before he gave the order telling Congress that Sadam had ties to al Quada. The reason, I believe, he was pushing that was that he already had the OK from Congress to go anywhere and do anything to fight al Quada. Same with the UN. He still has that right by the way. And haved you noticed how al Quada seems to be everywhere???

[Poiuyt]

4. I think it's simpler than that

Political weakness.

America was mad after 9/11 and wanted to get even. Bush had tremendous support both in this country and worldwide after the attacks. He was able to push his agenda through because no one in Congress wanted to be thought of as weak on terrorism. The mood of this country would have brought down anyone who didn't support going to war even if their conscionse told them otherwise. They were afraid for their jobs.

[BillZBubb]

6. Pretty much sums it up

Bush* was able to tar and feather the Democrats in the 2002 elections. The public bought into every thing the sociopath was feeding them. That's why the IWR got so much support. The politicians read the polls and look at the results of the most recent election.

The sad reality of politics is that you have to pick your battles. You cannot go against the tide on hot button issues too often or you'll be outside looking in.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. So should we be continuing to beat up our politicians

for their fall from ideological purity?

[BillZBubb]

10. I'm not for ideological purity--that's for losers

I want whoever can beat Bush*. To me, that person is the Democratic nominee. I don't care who it is--he'll have my total support.

[FloridaPat]

8. 90% of the world knew Bush was lying. The letters against the

act were 100 to 1. All the Democrats had to do is follow the people who were writing letters, not the bogus polls. They should have figured something was up. They should have put the vote off until after the election. It should have been obvious to everyone of them that it was an election ploy to stiffle the Democrats from bring up any other subject. And it worked. So the question I have been asking for 20 years is - who do the Democrats work for???

[Jackpine Radical]

11. My point is that I think Congress thought

that they knew better than us what was actually going on. They had all this high-class info & we were wallowing in ignorant internet drivel. Yeah, it should have been obvious, but it wasn't because they, in their conditioned elitism, automatically discounted our information sources because they were insiders who thought they REALLY knew what was going on.

[Gunit_Sangh]

9. Mid-term elections were a factor also

imho ... I'm sure the rnc was slobbering at the mouth to go after any dem who would vote against the use of force resolution and call them weak on terrorism. After all, look what they did to Max Cleland (and are still doing to this day).

From a pure political standpoint, it was a smart move (fyi -- I was horrified to see the resolution passed, I'm just commenting on the politics of the move). It forced people who would otherwise say "Not so fast" into voting for something just to make sure they got re-elected (I consider any politician who voted for war simply to ensure their re-election to be low-life scum) and allowed the neo-cons the free hand they needed to push their radical agenda down the throats of Americans.

I don't buy the "they had access to better intelligence" than the rest of us. Most here on DU knew before the use of force resolution was passed, and certainly before * pulled the trigger that their whole case for war was bogus in the extreme. There were many, many, many articles that shot holes in their entire rationale.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. I am most distinctly NOT saying rthey had access to

better intelligence (that is obviously not so), but simply that they THOUGHT they had access to better intelligence because they are anointed members of the Insiders Club. This mistaken belief caused them to disregard the very real signs that Bushco was pushing bullshit.

[hang a left]

13. Do you think that congress was oblivious to the fact that 9/11

was an inside job? Come on. You think that they didn't know they were being fed BS. Maybe we have to face the fact that they were in on it from the get. If you accept that premise, then how do you act?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Yes, I do think they were oblivious to that fact.