Why the IWR vote disqualifies anyone who voted YES.

[xkenx]

All Congressional Dems. had access to enough information to repudiate B**h claims about WMD, both biological and nukes. That is why Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and 20 other Dem. Senators voted "NO." At a Wes Clark PAC meeting which I attended in Nov., 2005, Levin spoke at length about that intel (bogus and lack of). While trying to be diplomatic about his fellow Dems., he nevertheless made it clear that he felt that most "YES" votes were the result of the lack of political courage. I don't draw much distinction between Hillary's political calculation to not change her mind about the vote, and and that of, say, Kerry or IWR co-sponsor John Edwards, who "repented" when it was safe to do so. They are all disqualified from being president. Why? Because I want a leader who will be smart, savvy, and courageous THE NEXT TIME such an issue comes up. No wet-fingers-in-the-political-wind. No manufactured cojones by people without street creds on war and foreign policy. Even now, candidates Clinton and Edwards are saber-rattling in the direction of Iran to show off their big brass ones. Even Obama, who opposed Iraq War feels the need to talk tough on Iran. Only Wes Clark, who HAS the street creds, preaches "War only, only, only as a last resort," going back beyond his pre-Iraq testimony before Congress. Only Wes Clark helps sponsor www.stopiranwar.com Wes Clark doesn't have to prove anything. Wes Clark will keep us out of elective wars, and will know what to do if America's security is truly threatened.

[blm]

1. Are you familiar with Iraqgate?

I think anyone who supported Bush's DECISION to go to war when the IWR was actually working to PROVE that military force was not needed is the defining issue.

Iraqgate evidence against Bush1 proved that Poppy Bush and his cronies DID supply chemical and biological weapons to Saddam - there was nothing wrong in wanting weapon inspectors IN Iraq - as per the IWR - what was wrong was Bush LYING about his determination that force was needed to defend our national security even after weapon inspectors were reporting the exact opposite.


The IWR did not send this nation to war - Bush went to war DESPITE the IWR's weapon inspections.

Blame the IWR - you let Bush off the hook for violating it and put the blame on a document that SHOULD have prevented war.

Clark can stand on his own very well and would never pretend that the IWR was the reason Bush went to war - Bush was going anyway, and used the IWR to get Democrats to attack each other.

What if Biden-Lugar version of IWR passed? Would everyone who supported Biden-Lugar be called a warmonger or prowar?

[pocoloco]

4. Iraq fucking Gate??

You ever hear of the PNAC???

[blm]

7. Not the point. The point is that after the documented evidence of Iraqgate

dealings that ILLEGALLY supplied Saddam with all types of weaponry, there were reasons to want weapon inspections to determine whether there was a REASON to use force to disarm Iraq.

IWR weapon inspections were PROVING that NO FORCE WAS NEEDED. Bush invaded anyway, as he always intended to do, because he the IWR meant just another distraction he can use politically.

[xkenx]

9. Inspections prior to 9/02 pretty much proved no WMD.

[blm]

11. There were no inspections from 1998-2002 and not all of the illegal supplies

that Poppy Bush and his cronies funnelled into Iraq were accounted for yet.

THAT should have always been the argument from the left - KEEP the inspections going so we can locate all the ILLEGAL weapons supplied to Saddam by Poppy Bush and his cronies.

Instead, they got snookered into Rove's political game where the IWR was to blame for war, not Bush's VIOLATION of the IWR in making his decision to go to war DESPITE the IWR's weapon inspections.

[karynnj]

16. Not true - the inspectors were not there for 4 years before

In a time frame when A.Q. Khan sold weapons and technology to at least 3 rogue states could you guarranttee that in those 4 years Saddam did not get any? Iraq borders some of the former USSR republics, most of them had WMD from the Soviet years - the major concern of many was that these were not secure and there was a danger of them being sold. Could you guaranttee this didn't happen?

The Senator that would have been the most concerned about AQ Khan was Kerry - who showed that BCCI funded their bomb and recommended that this be investigated, which it wasn't. The latter was what concerned most SFRC people - that's where Lugar/Nunn came from. It was a problem that there were no inspections for 4 years.

The fact is Bush abused the trust he was given - and because of the consequences he shouldn't have been given the trust. Kerry spoke out before Bush invaded, Hillary was silent and Edwards said it was justified for other reasons (after it started). Looking at this, I know Kerry would not have gone to war except as a last resort - his position on war since at least 1971. I know Obama wouldn't have because he said so. I seriously don't know for Edwards or Clinton. What I would want to hear from them is their philosophy on when they consider that war is justified and how they would deal with Congress and the people.

[Parisle]

5. 'Fraid I have to agree with "xkenx"

--- Trying to let the democrats off the hook may be an understandable objective,... but in many cases, they don't deserve it. Lack of political courage WAS involved,... a cynical acquiescence to the philosophy of the politically "safe" vote. They were afraid of what the voters would think if Bush made his disingenuous scheme stand up. They believed in everything that is wrong with party politics and the "political industry."

--- Sitting in the wilds of southside Virginia, I could see what was going on. The democrats in Washington certainly had all the same advantages I had, and then some. They screwed up.

[blm]

8. 95% of Dem voters couldn't even begin to tell you the first thing about Iraqgate.

Who was paying attention to the evidence being put into the record then?

You can't lump EVERYONE in together. Once weapon inspections were WORKING to prove force was not necessary, Bush made his determination DESPITE the IWR's weapon inspections guideline. Anyone who supported Bush at THAT POINT was wrong to do so.

[zalinda]

2. The problem with your statement

is that we DON'T know why some voted yes. Kerry made it very clear that he was not voting for war, but that he was voting basically for a show of good will towards Bush. He gave Bush trust and was fucked over.

The plain simple truth is that no politician can read EVERYTHING that comes before him, he relies on aides to do that. We have no idea what the aides told their bosses.

I am so happy that you have NEVER made a bad decision in your life. It must be wonderful to hold that over people's heads.

zalinda

[xkenx]

3. Of course no one is perfect. I just want to elect someone who gives us better odds up front.

[iamjoy]

6. Your Post Troubles Me

A part of me thinks "fair enough" on not accepting repentence. For me, I am troubled by John Edwards supporting the IWR, but I do not attribute it soley to political calculation, because I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

If you truly feel that there is no redemption for supporting IWR, then, you should only support a candidate who actually voted against it. Even if they had no opportunity and only made statements against it, I am not sure that is sufficient. It's always safe to criticize from a distance, when the responsibility for national security is not on your shoulders. As for attributing "yes" votes to political pressure, the same could be said of opposing the IWR. Most of the "no" votes came from senators in liberal states. Barack Obama spoke against it, but again, he had a liberal constituency. If we are going to assume Edwards', Clinton's and Kerry's votes were politically motivated, why can't we assume the same about the opponents of IWR?

Anyway, I do often wonder why we criticize politicians who "stick their finger in the wind." If they are elected by the people, shouldn't they do what the people want? Don't we often criticize the current leadership in Congress for not doing more to stop the war since that's why the people voted for Democrats in 2006? If they really think a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous, would you want them to do what is best for the situation, or respond to public pressure to get us now? Isn't the whole point of anti-war protests, to raise public awareness and turn public opionion against the war so our elected officials will feel compelled to get us out?

It goes both ways.

[xkenx]

10. My wet-finger-in-the-wind analogy is not related to listening to the people, but

for using some combination of polls, fear of rethugs, lack of one's own expertise, as a substitute for the courage and confidence to do what is right. Sometimes that can even be contrary to your own supporters' wishes.

[iamjoy]

13. It's The Same Thing

Polls are one way to know what people are thinking, but there are others.

I imagine in North Carolina, most of the people were supportive of the war 2002/2003. Remember then that even the more fair and progressive elements of the Main Stream Media made it sound necessary. The well was poisoned.

Now, I suppose you could make the point that these Democrats could have used the intelligence they reviewed and tried to make the case to their constituents of why the war was wrong. And that is where I acknowledge your point. In fact, I believe Florida's Senator Bob Graham was quite shrewd in his voting against the IWR, saying it would take the focus off of al-Queda.

But, I don't think we can categorically say anyone who voted for IWR is either a hawk or doing it for political reasons. Conservatives accuse opponents of the war of political pandering, and some of them sound no less reasonable doing it.

[mtnsnake]

12. Any candidate with serious aspirations to get elected is going to talk tough

If they don't talk tough, the American people simply won't consider them in a post 911 world, unfortunately.

None of our candidates, however, are going to lie us into any wars like Bush did, regardless of any campaign tough talk.

[ClassWarrior]

14. So would you have been cavalier with your constituents' lives...

...if you were in Congress and you were told there was a nuclear threat?

You can't answer because you don't know. You have never been in that position.

Besides, we Progressives believe in forgiveness and redemption, not digging in our heels and refusing to accept positive change.

NGU.

[zulchzulu]

15. Please state exact quotes that Wesley Clark says about Iran...

I bet they match up with what Obama believes.

Let see how your opinion of Obama is incorrect...

[Alexander]

17. So, did you vote for John Kerry?

I did, despite my utter disgust with his IWR vote.

[xkenx]

21. Of course I voted for Kerry-far better than Bush.

But my point is that I want the best we can do. In the primaries, there will be choices.

[goodhue]

18. Yes, but I recall on Clark on CNN enabling warmongers

Walking around a floor map of Iraq of he was. He was a little critical but he did not call out the lie of WMD.

[Sparkly]

20. Oh, puleeeze.

He did NOT "enable warmongers." :eyes:

NObody could prove the negative (no WMD), and I heard NO one claim to. (Did you?)

[Morgana LaFey]

19. Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel

except the Wes Clark part.