Why are we being disregarded so easily?

[nonconformist]

By "we", I mean the people that were against the Iraq war from the get go. The people that got into arguments with family and friends over it because it wasn't a popular opinion. The people that took to the streets in protest... the people that called and wrote to everyone they could in office to try and stop this thing. Some of us put ourselves in harms way and alienated friends over this war, because what we had to say was so important it had to be heard.

Everyday, it's becoming clearer to everyone that we WERE right.

So why are our concerns now being brushed aside? Why are we supposed to just accept that Kerry voted for the IWR and has been, frankly, inconsistent on his disapproval of war? Why was I told today by a lifelong Democrat that the Iraq war is only something a "single issue voter" would consider to carry a lot of weight? It's not an isolated issue - it affects everything from the economy to our national security.

Yeah, in the end I'm ABB. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why in the world the Democrat's wouldn't want someone who was clearly against doing this in the first place as our nominee. It's our STRONGEST argument against the Bush Administration! Is it the threat of "electable" held over our heads and our, well, fear to see Bush serve 4 more years? Are we pandering to the masses... again?

It goes deeper than Kerry's vote. It's the general mood I've been seeing among Dems both here and in person - that we have to look at the big picture and we can't focus on one issue. I agree there are other important issues but come on - this is the BIG one to a lot of people. I agree that we can't transform this party overnight, we have a lot of ground to make up, but wouldn't a great start be to elect a nominee that opposed our unilateral invasion based on lies? If Kerry had only voted no on the IWR and been consistent with his criticism of it he'd be just about perfect. But these are huge issues that I, along with others I'm sure, just find hard to overlook. I can overlook a lot in the spirit of party unity and the desire to rid ourselves of Bush, but this is a doozy.

I'll vote for the nominee. To get really behind Kerry will depend on who he choses as his running mate though. I fear it will be someone that also voted for the IWR. I just wish it didn't come down to only being ABB, but rather a widespread belief in the ideology of the candidate. Sometimes, I feel like I'm the only one who finds it more than "disheartening" that the Democrat's didn't listen to the people they represent back when it really mattered.

[slinkerwink]

1. that's my question also.

[Dookus]

2. Because not everybody who was opposed to the war

is a Dean supporter. Far from it.

[nonconformist]

4. You don't have to support Dean

Kucinich opposed the war. Clark has been far more consistent than Kerry has on the issue.

I think what I'm frustrated about is the philosophy behind being able to so easily forgive such a grave blunder.

[calimary]

47. It's a big dilemma for this Dean supporter.

The war WAS a grievous mistake. A grave blunder - in MANY respects. More than 500 "grave" respects, last time I checked. It's a very tough one to reconcile. And, dammit, WE WERE CORRECT!!! We anti-war people who were out there marching and petitioning and holding rallies and teach-ins and candle-light vigils and peaceful protests - we WERE correct. We WERE proven to be correct. My aged, weathered, puckered "War is Not the Answer" bumper sticker (on the inside of my rear window) is one I keep on there with great pride. I will not replace it with a new one. I like the old worn-out one. It's a testament to how long I've kept it there.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. I think...

...that having made a massive mistake, some people are reluctant to keep around a reminder -- even if he is a fine candidate -- of having made it.

[mohc]

5. A few simple truths

People hate being wrong.

They hate being reminded they were wrong even more.

And they hate admitting they were wrong the most.

And most Americans fundamentally want to trust the government when it comes to matters of national security.

While many here on DU seem to think someone that voted for the IWR will have no credibility if Americans eventually turn on the war, thats probably not the case for most voters. The "swing" voters are literally the ones that swung from supporting the war last year to opposing it now. The candidate they will feel most comfortable with is one that had a similar track record, for at first against later on. That way the American people can say, "Look, even my candidate was misled by Bush", and never have to admit they were wrong.

[Toucano]

11. You've nailed it.

Remember when the polls show more than 70% of people supported the war?

They can identify with Kerry or Edwards more than the others, I guess.

[The Magistrate]

12. Well Said, Sir

You have summed it in a nutshell.

But the issue will cut, in the genral election, against the criminals of the '00 Coup, because people hate being made to feel cowards, and those who were frightened by the lies feel just that nowadays.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[nonconformist]

13. I think you are probably spot on (NT)

.

[JVS]

6. "I'm ABB"

I'm sorry I can't hear you anymore. You have agreed to buy whatever I put out there. ---- Sincerely, Democratic Party

That is why we can be disregarded so easily. One of the most popular movements among democrats in the last 2 years has been an act of self denial. It is a miserable failure.

[redqueen]

20. I agree

"USE ME!" you say?

Why, I think I will.

[vi5]

7. It boils down to whether the rest of us...

who may have been opposed to the war but who don't look at it as our most important issue when choosing a candidate. What is so hard about that for people to figure out.

I'm against the war.
It's not the only issue I'm using to choose a candidate.

As the old saw goes, this isn't rocket science.

[revcarol]

39. Sorry, but the "war Issue" isn't just the war issue.

It's an issue of whether our society is going to continue to be MILITARISTIC and EMPIRE BUILDING.Posse comitatus is effectively dead and the candidate leader doesn't seem to think this is worth a comment. He wants to add 2 divisions to the army and continue the occupation for ??who knows how many years.

It's an issue of SECURITY: 40 Billion $$, and 87 Billion $$$ and heaven knows how much more to continue the war/occupation could have been used to strengthen our first responders and pay them for their responses, guard our ports more effectively(about 2% of the cargo is inspected, STILL!!),effectively guard nuclear power plants and stockpiles, guard chemical plants, pay the Russians and others who have nuclear weapons to safeguard them,...

It's an issue of WHY DO TERRORISTS HATE US? We invade a sovreign nation for no reason. We continue to allow multi-nationals to pillage
foreign countries and their workers, in the name of free trade. And the candidate leader approves.

Finally, it's an issue of THE KIND OF NATION WE WANT AMERICA TO BE.A nation that respects human rights and has been a beacon to the world? Kerry doesn't want to repeal the Patriot Act. A nation that recovers its war-destroyed economy to be able to help with AIDS and other human problems? Kerry wouldn't reduce the defense budget, even a little.

I'm tired; I could go on, but the "war issue" is NOT simply the war issue.

so flame me.

[Toucano]

8. George W. Bush

is the one person most responsible for the war.

I guess voters are looking toward the future rather than the past.

In exit polls, people who voted for Kerry were often opposed to the war. I can only assume that voters aren't holding Kerry responsible for it.

His vote and the vote of Sen. Edwards would not have changed the outcome.

It doesn't sit well with me, though.

For the sake of Kerry defeating Bush, I hope voters remain willing to ignore past votes.

[Kanary]

9. You're far from alone in feeling "disregarded"

But after being bashed for speaking our minds, many of us have given up here.

Nothing is supposed to matter.

So, for those of us for whom it all *does* matter, we'll be marginalized.

Again.

Kanary

[anti-bush]

10. For me?

I was against the war from the outset, and still am.

However, it's too late to change the vote. We can't get those troops back. We can't undo what has already been done.

So I made my pick based on the future. How will this candidate perform as a president?

To me, voting or not voting for IWR is not an automatic disqualifier. I can look at the candidate I chose, and believe that he is not going to go off on unilateral campaigns of invading countries around the world. I don't believe that about Bush.

I believe my candidate has a good plan for bringing our troops home, and ending the US occupation of Iraq. And I think it's more important at this juncture to have a plan to bring the troops home, than what the candidate voted on in early 2002.

I know the war is a divisive issue, and some people will never be able to forgive somebody for voting against it. I am willing to forgive that vote. To me, the bigger issues are on the domestic front.

[killbotfactory]

14. We can't win on issues, basically

No one cares that much. This race has come down to petty character issues and the perceived electability of the candidate.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Because the Crusade is popular and makes rich men richer

And that's what really counts!

[Snivi Yllom]

16. never mind the millions who marched back in early 2003

All that passion was for nothing....

:(

[jmaier]

29. speaking as one of those millions

the voting results are indicating that even for some of us, the IWR vote isn't the litmus test for voting in '04 -- it appears to be ONLY about ousting Bush. I can't say that is a bad thing. Regardless of how any of the candidates voted on IWR, you can't really argue that they would have pursued this policy as President. Defeating this administration is the best form of revenge.

[tnlefty]

17. Because we don't matter. Besides ABB just about allows for getting away

with anything doesn't it? It's difficult for me to remember a better opportunity for striking back and demonstrating the ineptness of this current administration and making a clear contrast and a case for progressive/liberal ideas.

I know that you aren't the only one who is feeling disheartened. One thing that didn't need to happen in my county in TN (Bush* Country) is for the liberal vote to be split and I'll be damned if that isn't exactly what will happen. I've talked to too many people who will not vote for anyone who voted yes on the IWR.

[spooky3]

18. two speculations

Please don't flame me. I don't know if either of these is correct but they are just hypotheses I wanted to put out for consideration.

1. There may be many people who are opposed to any war at any cost, under any circumstances. Not surprisingly, they opposed the war the Iraq war too. However, most people may not agree with this broad principle, and see it as much too simplistic in a complex world, and irresponsible or even dangerous under certain conditions. Most people may believe that war is necessary under certain circumstances, though all but a few of them hate war. For example, these people would likely believe that had the US not joined in World War II, the consequences would have been far worse than those of WWII. As another example, some may believe that the conflict in Kosovo stopped the even more immoral "ethnic cleansing". The questions for these people always concern whether the circumstances presented to them at the time a decision is made justify the horrible decision to go to war. To the extent that they believe that people who say "I opposed the Iraq war" did so because those opponents considered all of the complex circumstances and available information and judged it differently, they may respect those people. But they likely will NOT agree that those people who opposed Iraq simply because they oppose war in all circumstances deserve particular credit, because they weren't "right". Here's a lame analogy--if I take an umbrella with me every day no matter what, you probably won't see me as particularly insightful that if one day it does happen to rain and I am more prepared than someone who looked at the sky and didn't think it would. Just because it did rain today does not make me insightful or more right.

2. A lot of people in the "it depends" camp may not believe that those opposed to the war really did *know* that the intelligence was faulty, that Bush was lying, that there were no WMD, etc., or have higher moral standards as to what is objectionable. They see it as all a matter of belief based on incomplete information, and that some war opponents' beliefs (or justifications for their opposition regardless of whether there really were WMDs, etc.) have since been supported, but that it was not at all clear at the time that they would be. So for those people it's not a matter that they were morons (or immoral) and war opponents were brilliant or more knowledgeable or more moral. For them it's a matter of today, we know X rather than have to take a leap of faith, so, going forward, what is the right thing to do given what we now know?

[nonconformist]

21. I see your point, however...

The Iraq anti-war movement was one very much based on evidence and facts. I'm a realist, as were many outspoken critics of the war. The Bush Administration made so many tactical errors in their rush to war it was pretty easy for anyone that is remotely logical, could read and actually sought out some facts that it was a mistake. All stuff that can be argued point by point factually now in a debate, rather than the general pacifist philosophy that so few truly have and wouldn't be able to relate to.

[mmonk]

19. No need to feel disregarded

We (Clark supporters) have independent minds.

[DjTj]

22. I don't feel disregarded...

...I called Congressmen and Senators, I went to see Scott Ritter speak, and I was pretty upset over the IWR back in October 2002.

However, I stepped back for a year and I now believe that what someone did as a Senator two years ago has nothing to do with what they will do as President.

We may feel an urge to be retributive, but the Presidency isn't a prize we dole out to the person who has treated us best or built up the prettiest resume, it is a job, and we are picking the person we want to do that job.

The truth is, the candidates don't differ that much in what they want to do with Iraq in 2004, and every candidate will have to rely on international support that won't be completely in their control.

I know that none of these men are going to invade Syria, Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea, and I know they will all improve our relations with the UN. This is a huge difference from what Bush will do.

I see very little serious difference between the candidates on the Iraq issue, so I picked the candidate that connects best with me on domestic issues and the one I think has the best chance to beat Bush.

[Foswia]

23. Because you are a nonconformist. To much effort for too little votes. [nt]

[Tinoire]

24. The reason is ABB

Once they can get you on board with some silly loyalty oath that you will buy whatever car they trot out of the garage- who cares what you think?

With ABB, they could trot out Zell Miller and you'd still have screaming hordes saying "But he's better than Bush".

Nothing to lose once your vote is sewn up.

So don't give in. Say no to ABB. Make them work and sweat for your vote.

Note too that many of the voices calling for unity right now had no desire for unity when we were protesting the war. They were just as pragmatic then that there were certainly WMDs & that "alas, alas, getting rid of that tyrant Saddaam was a good thing". Don't fall for the hype. If you want people to respect you, and that includes the political establishment, stick to your principles.

If we, the voters, have none, how can we expect the politicians to have any? We get what we pay for in life.

[tameszu]

26. Well, anyone but Zell Miller

the guy actually did endorse Bush...

[Tinoire]

27. Yeah... but you get the point lol... n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Do You Disagree With Kerry's Foreign Policy Positions?

Obviously, you disagreed with his vote (as did I). But is there any point outside of the vote - including his position on Iraq - that you disagree with?

Kerry's been a committed multilateralist for many years now, has an extensive vision for dealing with proliferation and loose materials, and speaks forefully about getting at the roots of terrorism rather than fighting the symptoms alone.

Do you think he would have brought us to war in Bush's place? Do you think he would do something remotely similar after January 2005?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

28. It was a losing proposition for the Dems to vote no on the IWR.

There would have been a war anyway, and the Dems would have been crucified by the public and the Repubs as soft on National Security and Defense, so what Dems did was to take that weapon away from the Repubs for political survival. They also insisted on putting teeth into the resolution to make sure the inspection process would be implemented and that the UN and that our ally nations would be consulted and involved in a coalition. It was not dreamed at that time that Bush would run rough shod over the UN and all of our allies and piss off the rest of the world! And remember, they had this nation convinced that Iraq was responsible for 911 and had WMD’s, even if some of us knew better.

I don’t believe a vote for the IWR was a vote FOR war. That resolution called for several steps with war being the absolute LAST RESORT, and Bush absolutely disregarded the entire resolution and went straight for war. In fact, the Bush administration was prepared to go to war without the IWR – if you recall – they felt they had the right to do so in one of the UN resolutions and the War Powers act. THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO WAR ANYWAY. The Dems did all they could to slow them down by putting teeth in the resolution without committing political suicide in the process.

And, I DO think basing one’s vote on the IWR a “single issue” vote. Clearly. None of the Democrats who voted for the IWR would have taken us into this war. NONE OF THEM. They did not start this war, BUSH did. Yes, I think that war is wrong with every fiber of my being. But there is no turning back now – it happened. Like most Democrats, I’m more focused on getting someone in the White House who can clean up the mess that Bush got started, and more importantly, who will not continue additional wars into Syria, Iran, and North Korea, than on dwelling on what can’t be undone.

[HFishbine]

30. "There would have been a war anyway"

I find this sickening in the pit of my gut. The notion that we should excuse a lack of principled leadership with a wink and a nod to political expediency is just beyond my comprehension.

Maybe the rest of you are smarter than me, but this explaination just makes me want to sit home on election day. And yes, I know that if enough of us do that it could mean four more years of Bush, but so fuckin' what? If it takes grinding this country into the dirt in order for people to wake up to the need for principled leadership, that will be a good thing in the long run -- better than a democratic party ruled by political expediency, that will take us nowhere meaningful.

(on edit: When I was marching in the streets against the war, I pretty much figured there would be a war anyway, but that didn't stop me, damn it! Why should I and the millions like me be satisfied with a candidate who showed less courage than us peons?)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

36. You say so what to 4 more years of Bush for the sake of ideological purity

I will never, ever buy in to the the "all or nothing", "scorched earth" mantra. Nor do I distill such a complicated issue with all the dynamics and equally complicated environment involved into one simple dismissal as "political expediency". The game is chess, not checkers.

I wish the Democrats as a Party would have stood together and voted against the IWR, but they didn't. They chose to take National Security and patriotism away from Republicans as a weapon to be used against them, and now they have a voice in the debate with the American Public. Committing political suicide gets us squat.

[MadHound]

49. So just because an issue is politically right, but morally wrong

We should just settle for politically right! Sheesh, what temprature does your blood run at, because that sounds like some pretty cold calculus there to me, sacrificing tens of thousands of innocents so a political party doesn't get criticized. Whatever happened to principles and morals? For that matter whatever happened to our represenative doing their goddamn job and upholding their sworn oath to be a voice for their constituents? Messages to the House and Senate were running 280 to 1 AGAINST the IWR. Polls were running in the sixties and seventies against a unilateral, pre-emptive war. Polls were running in the same numbers to let the inspectors do their jobs BEFORE ANY OTHER DECISION REGARDING IRAQ WAS MADE. OUR REPS DIDN'T UPHOLD THEIR SWORN OATH ON THIS MATTER, yet you want to give them a free pass? Sheesh, I've got some swampland for you.

This is about more than the moral imperatives of not going to war, though that is plenty. This is also about how these bastards in Washington, even when faced with an overwhelming cry from their CONSTITUENTS instead take the craven way out. We were all shown by this IWR vote just how much we really matter to these people, which is zip, zero, nada!

Besides, now that we've found no WMD, don't you think that a person who voted no would look better now? Did you take that little factor into account in your cold hearted calculus? In fact to myself and others all of these people who voted yes on the IWR have been shown up for exactly what they are, cowardly cold hearted corporate whores who can't be trusted to be dogcatcher, much less an office like President, Senator, or Congressman. It shows how unwilling these folks are to listen to their constituents, instead doing what is politically expediant or whatever their corporate master wishes them to do.

And you can plead ignorance on this matter all you want, but that dog simply won't hunt. There were numerous reports out there from Scott Ritter, the IAEA, the CIA and various humanitarian organizations stating that Iraq had no WMD. All of these people knew what Bush would do whatever he wanted to do no matter what the wording in the IWR said, hell he had dropped enough hints about this at the time. There were a few courageous represantives who knew this and voted accordingly, there were millions upon millions in this country who knew this, and opposed it with every fiber of their being. And yet you are saying that these quisling Dems were ignorant of how Bush works, and they were reassured by the wording of the resolution? Well my friend, if they were that fucking dumb then they don't deserve to be in office either.

And if you don't think that a Dem would take us into war, I have three words for you; Gulf of Tonkin.

Sorry, this is much more than a single issue. It is a matter that goes to the heart of what it means to operate as a represenative in a democracy. The decision made by these quisling Dems showed exactly how little regard they have for their constituents, their job, and for life itself. You may be able to rationalize such a failure, but many of us cannot and will not excuse such abhorent behaviour by so called civilized people. We will not get over it, and quite frankly will do everything to oppose it, including voting third party, for it is obvious to all and sundry that the Democratic party has absolutely no regard for us at all.

[Iverson]

50. a kick for the faint hope of an answer

n/t (except this bit)

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[arendt]

32. We can be disregarded because we are NOT ORGANIZED.

First rule of politics: you have to show up at every meeting or
they will slip what they want past you when you don't show.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has not done
the dirty work since the DLC hijacked the party. That is hardly
surprising, as they spent half their time fighting the incoming
fire on Clinton. And for any support they might have given him,
the payoff is....Kerry. Thanks a lot.

I wil still vote for Kerry if he is the nominee; the same way you
vote for any machine hack - because he is better than the other
side's hack.

But, I will not stop organizing progressives inside the Democratic
Party. That is my right. So, all supporters of people who dropped
out should not simply drop their new connections and attach
to the DLC teat. They should keep in touch with fellow outsiders
and form a "new activist" network inside the party.

We have to win the election before we can worry about getting
our party back from the insiders. So, work hard for the nominee;
and keep your eyes and ears open.

arendt

[LoneStarLiberal]

33. My thoughts on this matter

Hindsight being what it is, the whole IWR vote will most likely never occur again. That is the impact that those opposing the IWR vote should take away from this whole situation.

In several ways, the IWR vote was probably the best thing that could have happened to the many elected centrist Democrats who had been "voting along" with the Bush administration on issues up to that point in time, or more accurately, until the Bush administration's craven desires and naieve postwar plans exposed exactly what kind of disaster we'd be looking at in Iraq. For those legislators who had any kind of belief in Bush or who were still scared of the thugs and chickenhawks that make up most of the Republican presence in Congress, the fallout of authorizing war in Iraq was the liberating moment, the time when there could be no more doubt that the Bush administration could not be trusted or appeased any longer. It was, to draw a popular analogy, Munich.

It is definitely the case that all those who stood resolute throughout the run up to war in opposition to the administration's efforts are to be commended for their stance. However, being opposed to the IWR and those who voted for it simply is not a major issue any longer for most of the American voting public, Democrats included. Those evil things called exit polls tell us that most of those people voting for Kerry to date are very much opposed to the war. But exactly what does "opposed to the war" mean?

Therein lies the rub in all this rhetoric. Being opposed to the war has several significantly different outcomes depending on your degree of opposition. Misleading general survey items like the "do you support the war?" do nothing to give us the clarity we need in looking forward to the election. They don't give us any detail as to what part of the war people support or reject, what war people support or reject, or whether or not anyone even understands that we AREN'T AT WAR constitutionally-speaking.

As far as Kerry's vote for the IWR, I think that there is a related message that gets lost in the demands for a nominee who opposed this war all along; if you look at public opinion, opposition to the war was trailing, not leading. People have only begun to look more critically at the war AFTER we've found out that the intelligence for it was cooked and crafted to the administration's desires. Understood in that context, I don't see where the drop-off will be with candidates who voted for the IWR but are now opposed to it when that very position seems to reflect the mood of most Democrats nation-wide on this issue. We were all duped on it...excluding those who opposed the war all along who were not duped for other reasons.

No, it does not reflect the mood of those who opposed the war all along, but I find the position of candidates who based their decisions on faulty intelligence more realistic than those who based the decision on other, larger reasons. And I don't think I'm alone on this.

[HFishbine]

34. I'd like to believe that

But there has been scant evidence that anybody has "learned their lesson," if you will. Kerry is all over the place and Edwards is unabashedly firm in his support of the war, even going so far as to say that he wasn't mislead by the "intelligence" but that it doesn't matter because he thinks attacking Iraq was the right thing to do anyway.

So, as it stands, the possibility you express remains nothing more than a hopeful theory. A little contrition would go a long way, but none has yet come from any of the candidates who voted for the IWR.

[Tinoire]

45. Edwards said that? Please provide a link.

I am not doubting you. I would just like to see it in black and white because I am trying to determine how far I can bend. If Edwards said that, he is 100% OUT for me.

None of them were misled. Saying they were misled is a brazen lie and we all know it. If they were mis-led then they are not "smart" enough to be President. If they are unrepentant, then they are too immoral to be President. The lack of contrition is the obvious insult to injury- a blatant disregard for the voters who begged and pleaded with them not to enable the war.

[HFishbine]

48. Edwards comments: "So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled."

I'm glad you asked. I'm going to PM you in case you don't make it back to this thread, but I'm also going to post here in case other people are ready to forgive Edwards' IWR vote because they are under the erroneous impression he was mislead. Here's Edwards on Hardball with Chris Mathews:

MATTHEWS: <snip>Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[nonconformist]

54. Any Edwards supporters care to comment on this?

.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

35. For me it's not even

so much an issue of which candidate did what or who voted for what. The thing that really burns me up is that I got into a lot of screaming matches with a lot of people I know and care about over this, and who I usually have a lot of respect for.

They called me every name in the book. They asked me why I was supporting terrorists. They asked me how I could sit back and "do nothing" about Saddam Hussein. And so on. It was fucking heartbreaking.

But I was right. That should be worth something, but it isn't. This whole enterprise was so wrong-headed and stupid, and it seemed blatantly obvious to me from the outset that the war was completely full of shit and being waged for completely cynical, opportunistic reasons. Watching people I knew of every political stripe fall in line behind this stupidity anyway was a horrible experience akin to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" --- it was like everyone I knew had been kidnapped in their sleep, cloned, and turned into PNAC'ers. It was absolutely heartbreaking.

But now I feel like I have an apology coming to me, one I'll never get. I feel like my ability to call this thing correctly should be worth something, anything. It isn't, apparently.

Sorry, I'm just venting here. But yes, I feel completely swept aside, and that every lesson I was ever taught about standing up for what you believe in was bullshit.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

37. I didn't get into screaming matches, but felt the same exasperation

The thing is, they really thought Saddam was behind 911 and that he was a threat to the US. Thank the media for that.

By that time I was already numb. My exasperation came during the 2000 campaign when Gore got skewered for everything from how his hair was parted to his bowel habits and Bush lies and missteps went unchallenged repeatedly. Bush could have stood before an audience and picked boogers and the media would have swooned that he got the whole booger in one dig, that's how bad it was.

And then there was Florida. *sigh* I know the exasperation, yes indeed. We are never going to get an apology. I'm looking for revenge - and the best revenge is success.

[nonconformist]

52. That's the rub, isn't it?

We risked friendships to speak out, we were called every name in the book - traitor, unpatriotic... but we STILL had the balls to protest it. I remember very well how exasperated I felt at the time. I remember feeling that I was one of the few people in the country that was sane.

To say that Kerry and Edwards would have "damaged" their political careers by speaking out is bullshit. It shows weakness - not exactly an upstanding quality for a president hopeful. We needed a voice back when it mattered, and so few in a position of power lended one. We are thirsty for someone we can enthusiastically support for president - not just someone with a (D) after their name and perceived electability. I'm feeling quite dehydrated these days.

[Iverson]

38. because they know they can ignore you with impunity.

The controlling corporate wing doesn't give a damn what you think. You are either a captive audience or else a "traitorous" Green who will get reviled way more than the Republicans.

If you want acknowledgement that you were right all along, cough up a few million dollars. Otherwise, your lot is to shut up and obey.

And you will sit there and take it.

[JVS]

40. Gee, it is enough to make me vomit with rage. How can I fight them?

:-)

[Iverson]

41. It's maddeningly simple.

Set a good example.
Nothing else drives them so crazy.

:toast:

[JVS]

42. Is it wrong to refuse to vote for a party in which your views are heresy?

[Iverson]

44. It's rarely exactly that simple.

However, I would say that it perverts democracy to vote for a candidate who is hostile to your interests.

[JVS]

43. In what ways can a good example be set?

[Iverson]

46. many answers

Individuals will find different ways to answer this for themselves, but a few ideas come to mind.

Electoral politics is only one way of bringing about constructive changes. Affiliating with non-partisan groups on issues that you care about is a good idea. Examples might be the ACLU, NAACP, Progressive Majority, Sierra Club, Campus Crusade for Christ, Urologists Against the IMF. You get the idea.

Building a third party can help especially at the local level to push the political discourse in the right left direction.

Talk to people.

Support those precious few politicians who do represent your interests.

Teach young people the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and the difference between rationality and irrationality.

There's more, but you get the idea.

on edit: P.S. - Let the arrogant corporatists know that they do not have a proprietary claim on your vote. Loss of control gives 'em apoplexy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Because they're taking your vote for granted.

Until you withhold your vote, they will continue to do so. Kerry has morphed into just another DLC stooge and they are happy with the knowledge that most Democrats will fall humbly in line and buy the "not as bad as Bush" BS.

Until we make our vote count, they will continue the drift to the right.

[dsc]

53. anti war voters have no one to blame but themselves

The four anti war candidates who have been on ballots have not combined to win even one primeary excepting the DC primary. They may wind up combining to win Maine but we won't know for a couple more days.

That is despite the fact that anti war voters supposedly out number pro war voters. If you vote against your interests in a primary you get what you deserve. It isn't like there wasn't a choice for anti war voters. Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and Kucinich. There was literally something for everyone. Shame on anti war voters for not following through.