Bush misled the legislature. Repeat after me. BUSH MISLED THE LEGISLATURE.

[joshcryer]

Bush misled the legislature. He lied about the evidence to go to Iraq. He lied about the threat that Iraq posed. He lied. People died.

It is not the legislatures fault for believing their President, no matter how dumb, no matter how evil their President is. It's called the benefit of the doubt. Politicians use it every day.

So I do not care about Edwards' vote. I do not care about Hillary's vote, or John Kerry's. I simply don't care. And I think if anyone does care they simply do not understand what truly happened and the relevance of said votes. The votes meant nothing. Bush would've went to war anyway even if the whole Democratic party voted against it. And it probably would've cost us a few more seats in '04.

Any politicians coming out and saying they were "wrong" are weak. It is not wrong to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It is not wrong to believe your Commander in Chief in times of unrest. What is wrong is all of these threads on DU talking glossing over the fact that BUSH MISLED THE LEGISLATURE.

Bush did it. Not any Democratic people running for President.

I know that threads like this don't actually stop the bickering, but I see now on the primary politics forum three threads relating to this very issue (on the first page). And it comes up over and over and over again. Why cannot we agree that BUSH MISLED THE LEGISLATURE and get on with it? That's the travesty here.

[Little Wing]

1. He didn't mislead me

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

3. You were a politician in the legislature?

He didn't mislead you because like many people in our corporate media world, we're observers over things. We can sit back and just watch in our armchairs talking about "right and wrong" but we don't have to actually make those sorts of decisions.

If I were a politician and I was told something bad was about to happen it wouldn't be so cut and dry.

[Colobo]

2. He didn't misled Obama

[joshcryer]

4. He didn't have to make that decision.

It's easy for people who haven't had to make such strong decisions to sit back and say that they'd do things differently. It's real easy. Such moral high ground here.

[enough already]

5. He didn't mislead 23 Dems in the Senate

Didn't mislead me either. Every time he opens his mouth, he's lying. Back to the drawing board....

[David Zephyr]

6. He didn't fool Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi...

Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters and a lot of Democrats.

Every shred of "evidence" presented by the Bush Administration to Congress and to the United Nations had already been previously discredited.

The reason why some Democrats voted to go along with Bush on the Iraqi War Resolution was not because they were "misled" but because they feared looking unpatriotic and were afraid of the Republicans. Period.

Thank God that Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt are gone. Their cowardice is now history. They must live with themselves and the deaths of hundreds of thousands because they were afraid of being called names by George Bush and Dick Cheney. Shameful.

They were not misled. They were cowards. I forgive them, but they were cowards when it mattered.

[Colobo]

8. There you go

[joshcryer]

9. That's how politics works.

If you want to make changes to also have to make sure that you stay in freaking office. Anyone who knows anything knows this. Politics are very very dirty. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to get a grip, seriously.

[David Zephyr]

11. Sorry, the Democrats were crushed in '02 after they kissed Bush's butt.

And when the Democrats showed spine, guess what? We won back both the Senate and the House.

"That's how politics works" doesn't cut it when you are speaking about sending American young men and women into war. You'd better get that one right.

John Edwards says now that he got "the most important vote" wrong. I accept him at his word.

Hillary is a whole other matter. She's not going to get the nomination of our party and I'm not even worried about it at all, because her calculations on the Iraqi War tuned out bad for her. She's got a real problem on her hands with voters and...that's how politics work.

[joshcryer]

13. I don't know where to begin.

No Democratic candidate would've been able to succeed in 2002 against Bush and a pro-War environement. Howard Dean for example, was way anti-war in 2004, but he got summarily crushed by Kerry. Politics isn't "moral decisions" and "niceities." It's like a game of chess where you have to play not only your positions but how people perceive your positions.

The only reason the Democrats won in 2006 is because, quite frankly, the GOP screwed themselves up. I agree with the assessment that "The Democrats didn't win, the Republicans lost."

[David Zephyr]

40. Begin by admitting that you have now contradicted the rationale of your O.P in your own thread.

First you open a thread saying that the Democrats who voted for the Iraqi War Resolution (while others bravely voted against it) were "misled".

Now, you say that the voted for the Iraqi War Resolution because as you say "that's how politics work" and because it's a "game".

You can't have it both ways. Either it they were "misled" and voted on conviction which is your first pronouncement - or they voted to survive "politically".

And finally, what do you say about the many Democrats who voted AGAINST the Iraqi War Resolution? I'd really love to hear your take on their vote. Why weren't they "misled" as you say? There in lies the quandary of your proposition.

Think about it: You cavalierly insult all the many Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate who voted against giving Bush power to wage war in Iraq. In order to rehabilitate your candidate, Hillary Clinton, you must drag down and insult all the great Democrats who did not succumb to her great folly.

[Cleita]

12. Thanks.

My thoughts are pretty much like yours.

[joshcryer]

14. Now count how many of those were in states who could've lost.

Not one that I can see. They were all in highly blue states. Funny that. If you think that politicians make votes on their consciousness, and not by considering all the variables, INCLUDING the variables that are going to KEEP THEM IN OFFICE then I think that you simply do not understand politics.

It would be WRONG to throw away your ability to affect change by voting in a manner and by vocalizing in a manner that would threaten your ability to be reelected.

Sorry, that's politics.

[robinlynne]

7. Because people want a real candidate to give their support to. We all knew

Bush was lying at the time. It was obvious. Those politicians knew it too. They were playing to the right. playing for votes, instead of doing the right thing. They went along with it. It happened a lot in the second world war too. It happens throughout history. But the consequences happen too.
There will be other moments in the future with similar decisions to make.
We want a candidate with the guts to stand up to tyranny, not go along with it becuase it may get them more votes that day.
We want a candidate who will make the RIGHT decision, not the decision which may look popular at any given moment, popular to the right wing, flag waving patriotic wing of the US.
That is why.
It really is important.

[joshcryer]

10. Is it right to give up your political position...

...over some thing that is going to happen anyway?

If I know that a position I am going to take is going to result in my not being able to do anything significant again ever, should I take it?

[robinlynne]

35. what on earth are you trying to say? please say it directly.

[robinlynne]

36. Are you saying the democrats voted for the war to keep their power?

[jerryme1]

15. Naive

I am an ordinary person and I was not misled by Bush in 2003. I am confident every legislator who voted for the Iraq War did so in a calculating manner. I do appreciate your zeal, but do not let the congress escape responsibility for this war. Ralph Nader is not the only one who has a diffcult time telling democrats from republicans.

[joshcryer]

17. Bush should take full responsiblity. His congress should take full responsiblity.

His administration should take full responsiblity.

Yet all I see here on these forums is petty bickering over a few legislature votes!

This is not naive.

I put the chain of complicity as such. Bush > controlling majority > useless minority.

The legislature should be last to be criticized for the vote and the Iraq war.

[jerryme1]

29. Duty

For our democracy to function properly, the minorty must be like a horsefly on the majority's hide. Don't let the Dems off so easily.

[joshcryer]

32. The country is split down the middle.

There is no real minority here. The country is a mess.

What you seem to be forgetting is how often the Democrats fillibustered throughout Bush's run back in 2002-2003. They were doing their job. But what good is their job if they are going to give up the evil side of politics and stop making ambiguous decisions to save their butts?

They could not have done anything about the Iraq War. Except say "no" to it and potentially lose their jobs. It would've still happened.

[jerryme1]

37. Clarification

When I say minority, I mean congressional minority in the technical sense. If the minority was doing its job properly, many of them - Clinton, Edwards, etc...- would not have voted to invade Iraq; it's that simple. You address my concern when you say "potentially lose their jobs." That's my whole point. The minority was playing politics in an effort to retain their congressional seats, in the event the war was successful. If we had term limits, politicans could focus more on doing the right things for the country rather than constantly focusing on being reelected. But I digress....

[dogman]

16. So they're sheep?

They don't have the capacity to analyze and form an opinion for themselves, yet they should lead the Country. I'm not one of the flock, I'm not following that herd.

[joshcryer]

18. Sure they did, and they did the politically sound thing to do.

The people who voted against the Iraq war did not at any point have their votes threatened. Simple. When you know you're safe you can make more controversial moves.

[sandnsea]

19. Why Bush gets away with it

This thread is why. Yes, Bush lied and a variety of manipulations were going on between the White House, DoD and CIA. Many people relied on that intelligence to inform their decision making. Even people like Wes Clark and Howard Dean who supported a UN process of forcing inspections and a war as last resort. All these people who say they 'knew', have apparently not read the statements of their own heroes who DID NOT KNOW.

This is completely different from Hillary, however. For 2-3 years she refused to come out strongly against this war because her presidential aspirations were more important. She orchestrated the war hawk strategy. She continues to do that with her recent phony attacks on supposed Dems who won't fight terrorism. What bullshit. THAT is the problem with Hillary. Completely different than not knowing the drastic manipulations going on over the WMD.

[joshcryer]

20. The only thing I'm learning from this thread...

...is that a lot of people responding don't understand how politics work. They would rather have these vocal minorities who simply cannot succeed politically than these devious back room connivving evil people which is what politicians really are.

Your own post reflects that. You want someone with moral superiority, yet, there exist very very few politicians as such.

[sandnsea]

21. Actually most are quite moral

Mine are Wyden and DeFazio, then I have Wu, Bluemenauer, and Hooley for Dems. They're all moral. I've supported John Kerry for years, moral. Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, on and on, MORAL. The truth is, MOST politicians are moral. We've just abdicated so much responsibility in knowing our elected official that we keep letting the sociopaths lead us astray.

[joshcryer]

22. I'm not going to get into an argument about political morality.

Because that would derail this thread to oblivion. Let's just say I know enough about all of those and only Kucinich and Feingold really speak to me. In any case, I will maintain that the moral ones are still quite a minority.

[Forkboy]

23. The travesty is that some believed Bush in the first place

Why can't we all agree that those whose voted for it fucked up?

[joshcryer]

24. That would only be the case if they were enablers.

They weren't. Bush would've went regardless.

I did a lot of arguing back in 2003. I did a lot of research. Bush had the mandate to go to war, because we were already and still at war with Iraq at that point.

There was nothing that could stop Bush from going to war. Simply nothing.

[Forkboy]

25. "Bush would've went regardless" I agree,which is why a NO vote would've cost them nothing

They could have been on the right side of history but had other goals in mind,imo.

[joshcryer]

26. You're wrong, it would've cost a lot.

Those who didn't have anything to lose did do the no vote (look at all the states by senators who voted no, they're mostly blue/guarantees).

[Forkboy]

28. That just reinforces the thought that it was a political vote

Those who didn't have anything to lose did do the no vote

The inverse is that those who DID have something to lose voted for yes.Not because it was right or wrong,but because they had something to lose.

That is cowardice,plain and simple.

[joshcryer]

30. It's not cowardice, it's intelligence.

It's like a game of chess.

Do you bring out your queen early on? Not usually. You hold back, protect your king. Then you pounce. After you've set the board up in such a way that the enemy cannot fight back.

[KansDem]

38. But this isn't a game of chess...

Like the DUer above stated, when you go to war you don't go based on lies. Over 3,000 Americans and 600,000 Iraqis have died. All for Bush's lie. This wasn't a "chess game" to get more money or a military base for your district or state by agreeing to sign on to some other "chess player's" legislation to get same. This was about war. You don't play politics with war.

The lies and distortions of the war-mongering corporate media didn't help matters at all. No doubt there were savvy politicians who knew America was being spoonfed a load of crap from the Whoreth Estate. But rather than take a principled stand, they opted to "go along to get along" with the Corporate Media and their beguiled, the American people.

I imagine the long and the short of it is that many Americans thought this would be a short war. We were told only a few weeks--kinda like Panama or Oil War I (first Gulf war). Those who voted for this war probably thought "we'd get our hair mussed a little" (Dr. Strangelove reference), but we would emerge victorious and see happy Iraqis dancing before our victorious army while throwing flowers. Then it all would be soon forgotten as we moved into another political season.

Yeah, they knew Bush was lying but gambled that we would win ("short and sweet") and everything would be hunkie-dorie. They lost.

[patrice]

27. NO ONE is absolved of his/her responsibility. Not One Single One of Us.

All of us are complicit in this thing.

What has happened IS what the U.S. is.

Did you happen to watch Ghosts of Abu Ghraib this evening?

The research done by Stanley Milgram, which Kennedy cites at the end of his documentary, pretty much describes the mind set that leads to complicity.

[joshcryer]

31. Complicity is such a relative term.

And if you get down to it the regular people are simply not as complicit, and the minority in the legislature certainly is less complicit than the majority and the administration.

[patrice]

33. Of course it is.

And the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the whole (culture) would not be what it is without each of its parts. Without any one of us, it would be something else, something different from what it is (this BTW is the principle behind environmental responsibility). And each of us who could have chosen to do or not do "small" dehumanizing things (that all add/added up) should recognize his/her guilt for failing in such "small" things that could easily have been otherwise, if s/he had chosen differently.

I just don't like people going around calling other people monsters unless and until they see the "little" monster in themselves. Watch what goes on on this board. If we can't see this, if we continue to externalize the causes, we are doomed to repeat the whole thing over and over again under different sets of masters.

May I recommend Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed for some perspective on what I'm trying to say here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. I think you need to stop smoking'...

what's in your avatar.

Sure, Bush tried to mislead the legislature, but the Dems who bought it for real or for political purposes are either too stupid or too cowardly to be President, IMO.

[Jacobin]

39. repeat after me: Blame someone else for my mistakes

blame someone else for my mistakes.

:eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

41. That is THEIR JOB

Their JOB is to question the president. Their job is to discover the facts for themselves.

That is why it is called a check and balance and not RUBBER STAMP.

If you simply believe everything you are told, without question, you are nothing more than a rubber stamp.

"He lied to me" is not an excuse worthy of a US Senator.