An observation about the IWR vote

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I have always felt that it would be best if our candidate did not vote for the IWR, and wanted very much for Gore to enter the race for that reason. When it became apparent he wouldn't, I accepted that I was forced to chose between IWR voters. Though I would prefer the candidate not be an IWR voter, it would be akin to a suicide pact to consider myself obliged to select Kucinich, Richardson or Obama. I consider all three absolutely terrible candidates... a considered, practical opinion I am entitled to, though not a popular one. (And I am all but certain that Obama would have voted for the IWR were he in the Senate at the time... again, merely my conclusion.)

Of the IWR "yes" voters we have Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards. Though I deplore their IWR vote as Senators, it doesn't trouble me much in a Presidential race because I have no reason whatsoever to think that any of those four would have ever gone to war with Iraq as President. In fact, it is inconceivable that any of them would have.

The dynamic of rallying around the flag as part of a deliberative body, and showing insufficient objection to the war is a very different thing from instigating a war as an individual commander.

The shame of the IWR vote is that it was a political calculation in every instance, and I believe that Richardson and Obama would have cast the same vote had they been in the US Senate in 2002. Senators with political ambitions have a way of ending up supporting the President on matters of war, and always have. Just as Senator Al Gore voted for the Gulf War in 1991, after explaining for weeks all his deep reservations about it. As John Edwards has demonstrated since he left, it is often very convenient to not be in the US Senate! Surely nobody thinks IWR yes-voter John Kerry actually believed in the Iraq war. Or to put it more pointedly, surely nobody believes that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq as President.

The IWR vote is shameful for what it reveals about politics and politicians. It is a genuine mark of shame. But it says surprisingly little about what a person would do as President. (In fact, the same sort of political calculation and cowardice we see in all of our candidates on various issues argues quite strongly that None of them would go so far out on a limb as to start a major war for the Hell of it. Our candidates are trimmers and calculators, not sociopaths.)

[1corona4u]

1. I would just add...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA

[killbotfactory]

2. No more excuses

It was the wrong thing to do, end of story. I'm sorry that their jobs are tough, and they were going to face heat if they opposed an invasion, but if they can't get it right on something as important as war, then they should be sent to the corner in a dunce cap, not be elected president.

I'm not interested in what Obama would have done in some alternate reality, I care about what he has done in this one, and in this one he opposed this stupid fucking war.

[JohnnyLib2]

3. I applaud your farsightedness --

and pray that you survive the repercussions! LOL :hi:

[MadBadger]

4. I think Edwards would have gone to war with Iraq, and possibly Hillary.

[emulatorloo]

5. I think the moon is made of green cheese.

We are all entitled to our opinions, though.

Anyway, as to IWR, I am pretty sure that Colin Powell told them something along the lines of:

"Don't worry we won't go to war. We will get a Diplomatic solution, this is all just saber rattling. We need your vote to force Saddam to negotiate."

But the bushies were lying to Colin too.

[lojasmo]

9. Powell was lying.

Remember the "this is bullshit!" statement before he went to the UN?

[Radical Activist]

10. Why would I vote for someone who got fooled by George Bush?

Do you want someone that gullible sitting in the White House?

[emulatorloo]

11. They thought Powell was credible.

People who did not trust BUSH, would have trusted POWELL. At the time, he was perceived of as SMART, A STRAIGHT SHOOTER.

---

[Radical Activist]

12. I don't see why.

He lied constantly during the first gulf war.

[killbotfactory]

14. The inspectors basically said Powell was full of crap

and that they weren't receiving any worthwhile intelligence on Iraqi WMD's despite our obligation to share such information.

This was public knowledge BEFORE Bush invaded. Did anyone who supported the IWR listen to them? Fuck no. The UN teams were dismissed as ineffective losers who had the wool pulled over their eyes by a dastardly Saddam. Powell's presentation was heralded as a "not quite a smoking gun, but close enough". The US was presented as the "rogue cop" who cuts through the red tape and gets the "bad guy". Democrats generally went along with this, so when they protested that the war started too soon, and inspectors needed to "finish the job" it rang completely hollow. With that kind of framing, what possible reason would Bush have to extend weapons inspections to let them finish?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Autumn 2002 was different from Spring 2003. After the inspectors were in and

demonstrating pretty plainly there was nothing there worth worrying about, I doubt many Dems would have voted for the IWR.

A lot happened between the IWR and the invasion, including some very important leaks from intelligence agencies around the world... leaks that would have been a lot more useful in September 2002 than they were in February 2003. (One UN leak in particular.)

The war was always the stupidest idea in American history, but it got even stupider during the period between IWR and invasion. This is a dog shit vs. cat shit thing... anyone who thought there was a cassus belli in Fall 2002 was nuts. Anyone who felt the same in March 2003 was extra heavy-duty barking mad bat-shit crazy nuts.

Speaking for myself, I thought the idea of war with Iraq was insane in Fall 2002 because the presented chem/bio WMD threat was not a threat to anybody, and there was obviously no nuke program worth talking about. (Essentially the Gore position)

The Powell presentation was obviously fake, which suggested they had nothing, but that was after the IWR. The leaks about Saddam's defector son-in-law sealed the deal in my mind that there were probably not even going to be left-over canisters of useless degraded shit from the 1980s. So, by the time of the actual invasion, I had come to suspect there were no WMD programs at all. (The Ritter position)

It really didn't matter to me whether there were WMD programs or not because that's not a threat, let alone a justification for an obviously disastrous war. But it's interesting that the quality of the evidence changed a lot between IWR and war.

And since none of the viable candidates had 5% of the understanding of the intelligence and diplomatic situation that I did, just from reading the damn newspapers, I don't feel obliged to get weak-kneed over a candidate who was less wrong than someone else. Shit. Why not make me president? Even Gore and Obama were talking about WMD. I don't recall any candidate taking the Scott Ritter position, so we can get over the idea there are any truly far-sighted people in the race.

[killbotfactory]

23. The problem with the IWR

Is that even if you thought there were stockpiles of unaccounted for WMD, and you wanted inspections to make sure Iraq was disarmed, giving Bush the authority to wage war for regime change was not necessary to get the inspections to work. From the beginning republicans framed it that the inspectors were useless twits and Saddam was running circles around them, building nuclear facilities right under their noses. That alone should have told people how serious Bush was about inspections. There was no reason for the IWR other than to set the stage for an inevitable invasion, and it was obvious before the vote that diplomatic options were being set up to fail.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. I agree 100%. The only problem with the IWR is that Bush is a sociopath, and that should have been

obvious to anyone.

Oddly, a lot of people back then could not process the idea that any President would kill countless thousands of people as a publicity stunt. You knew it, and I knew it. But lots of people who had come to rely on the stability of political institutions apparantly couldn't imagine it.

My honest opinion is that most IWR voters did so to avoid falling into what they perceived as a political trap... and election year stunt. They assumed Bush was evil enough to treat war as a campaign stunt to hurt the Dems, but didn't comprehend that he actually intended to go to war. "Get the inspectors in and there's no way he'll be able to go to war then..."

A terrible misjudgment!

[frogcycle]

41. thank you for that

"My honest opinion is that most IWR voters did so to avoid falling into what they perceived as a political trap... and election year stunt. They assumed Bush was evil enough to treat war as a campaign stunt to hurt the Dems, but didn't comprehend that he actually intended to go to war. "Get the inspectors in and there's no way he'll be able to go to war then...""


It is great that so many here on DU "knew" back then how serious a sociopath bush is. I thought he was a weasel, a party boy who did not know his ass from first base, a soulless hypocrite, lots of things. I felt he got off on being the guy with the biggest baddest military, and would relish the opportunity to use it. But I honestly did not comprehend that he was the fricking devil. I did not expect the invasion to occur without incontrovertible evidence. When Rumsfeld said "he has xxx and we know where it is" I actually thought they did know something. Oh, I thought they were hyping it, to be sure, but I thought with all that smoke there was at least a little fire. I regretted that 9/11 happened with party boy in the WH, but was of a mind to think that the fact I hated his guts was insufficient reason to say the US should not have authority to act appropriately in its defense and on behalf of UN sanctions against a rogue state. And at the end of the day, that is what the IWR authorized. The fact that party boy took it to be a blank check, trumped up "evidence" and said "let's roll" does not make the IWR wrong. Putting him and his crowd in charge is what was wrong. In hindsight, once he took office, it would have been appropriate for the opposition party to do all it could to just plain shut down the government. Hindsight is not much good though. hindsight is what all the sled dogs except the leader see.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. I knew he was that crazy, but I can't say exactly why. He just seemed to be

something much lower even than the average Republican. I think it was the astonishing contempt for the United States shown in the Bush briefs in both phases of Bush v. Gore.

The arguments were so un-American that the Court didn't rely on a single one of them in making their (equally loony) decision.

Their central argument was that no American has a right to cast a vote for President. That's actually sort of true, but since it wasn't going to be decisive, why raise it?

what I took from it was these people are so indifferent ot what anyone thinks of them that they are willing to publicly argue that Americans don't have a right to vote for President DURING A RECOUNT. It seemed to me to represent a derangement... an almost boastful contempt for democracy unlike anything I'd seen in American politics.

So that's why I put nothing past them.

But a lot of institutional people probably assumed that Bush 41 and Powell and James Baker would keep the psycho in line, and a lot of institutional people remembered Cheney as a somewhat reasonable person... that guy who argued against invading Iraq back in 1991.

They fucked it up. No doubt.

[killbotfactory]

50. So why did almost all of them go along with the invasion?

After it was made absolutely clear Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job?

All of the ones running, who voted for IWR, made statements about going in too soon, etc, but when Bush ordered the invasion to go forward, they all backed down and blamed Saddam for bringing the war upon himself, etc.

There was plenty of time for them to sober up and realize Bush was not honoring his word.

[penguin7]

39. There could not have been stockpiles of WMDs

They would have degraded.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well, here's Edwards on that.....

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

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

[sandnsea]

6. "Mr President, DO NOT RUSH TO WAR"

"What we need is a regime change in Washington"

"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time"

Compare to Bill giving Bush a pass on yellowcake and Hillary's "stay the course" in Nov 2003, and a whole lot more.

Do not even compare Hillary to John Kerry.

[cali]

17. He voted for it as surely as she did and all his

speeches don't make up for it. On the subject of the IWR, he certainly can be compared to Clinton. He should be compared to Clinton, and his hands are every bit as stained with blood. Period. Exclamation point.

[blm]

24. Except that he STUCK to his word and dissented PUBLICLY before, during and after

Bush invaded, as ANY ONE who voted for IWR to get weapon inpsectors in should have done after weapon inpections were working to PROVE force was not needed.

Imagine if MORE of the IWR voting senators did that AT THE TIME. The media couldn't have so easily gotten away with blaming the IWR for war when it was Bush's VIOLATION of the IWR that took this country to war.

[cali]

30. So what? His hands are every bit as bloody as any other Senator's

who voted for it.

Imagine if they hadn't voted for it.

[blm]

33. Bush STILL would've used force in Iraq and they likely would make certain to plant WMDs

And he would have still had the last Dem president siding publicly with him.

You may want to believe the IWR took this country to war, but it didn't. Bush violated it to get that war.

If an IWR was written in a way that EVERY Dem in senate and congress voted for it - Bush would have had this war.

[cali]

35. what nonsense. All to defend Kerry's MISTAKE

Whether Bushco would have attacked Iran is NOT the point.

[blm]

36. You think someone supporting Bush's DECISION to invade is equal to someone who

opposed his DECISION to invade when weapon inspections were proving force wasn't necessary.

THAT is nonsense and you spout it because you can't control that twitch in your knee.

[Tactical Progressive]

7. Very rational and reasonable perspective

from someone who is so strongly against the IWR. Certainly more mature than those who can't get over it, and far more reasonable that those for whom that vote is the only thing that matters.

You're right about Obama - he would have voted for the IWR had he been in the Senate, which is the only way it matters.

But so too do I think Al Gore would have voted for the IWR. I'm not so sure about him, but I've been watching Al Gore for 20 years and I think so.

Wes Clark too, who was very anti-Iraq invasion also said he would have voted for it.

This isn't a slam by me on any of these candidates, it is credit to them. I think the IWR vote was the right one, but then I don't think voting against the IWR was wrong either.

From someone who is strongly against that vote, your ability to put it in the context of a Presidential election speaks well of your political maturity.

[Donna Zen]

29. Excuse me...er...

Wes Clark was on the phone with Daschle the night Gephardt caved. Why was Clark repeatedly willing to leave a dinner table in Chicago? Because they were trying to come up with wording for a resolution that would have demanded that bush return to the senate. Clark knew very well what bush had up his sleeve and he warned the congress about giving bush a resolution with a trigger. Wellstone quoted Clark when he voted "no." Clark has said that he would have voted for a resolution....but not that one.

Ya know, I don't have a candidate that I'm supporting and that makes me very happy. However, I find it disturbing to read the words of someone who fought very hard for "our" side having his words twisted to suit the needs of those who do support someone who voted to give bush a blank check. The Dems. controlled the senate at that time, and bush needed their strong support to take to the UN. Oh, and everyone in DC knew that bush really, really wanted to invade Iraq...the damn stupidest idea ever.

[Radical Activist]

8. Obama ran for US Senate when the war was still popular.

He was outspoken against it during the primary and general election of '03-'04. He spoke at a rally opposing the war before it begam. All of Obama's actions make it clear that he acted with courage, conviction and intelligence. I think your feelings about Obama aren't supported by any objective reality.

Anyone who voted for the war will have a very hard time getting elected because they won't be able to get beyond the "I was for it before I was against it" attacks. They will look like an indecisive, poor leader. Someone who was against the war from the start is much more electable.

[1corona4u]

13. I don't think so....

really, I don't.

[Radical Activist]

15. All evidence to the contrary, huh?

All of Obama's actions point to the reality of his strong opposition. Kucinich is the only other candidate besides Obama with the guts to even show up at an anti war rally. Other candidates don't want to be seen with that crowd.
But anyone is welcome to believe anything they want without evidence or rational explanation.

[1corona4u]

16. Your name suits you.

[Radical Activist]

28. Thanks. n/t

[penguin7]

40. Obama was not all that outspoken against the war

[Lurking Dem]

51. 2002

don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

2004 (NYT interview)

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

Bolded part is what Tim Russert left off when he read the quote on his show.

[frogcycle]

43. huh?

whatever dem gets nominated, he/she will be running against the warmongers. Unless the kucinich wing plans to campaign against the dem nominee, who will be making these attacks?

[Bitwit1234]

19. I personally wouldn't want a candidate who said he would bomb Iran

AND OBAMA SAID THAT. Now Hillary nor any of the other Democratic candidates said this. What does that tell you. Obama says anything at that moment to make an impression. That's why he skipped 140 votes, votes that were conterversarial....that way he could slam someone whose vote was not popular.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Can I get a quote and a link on Obama saying he would bomb Iran?

Thanks!

[1corona4u]

22. Here's one from 2004...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

He says he would consider it. It's an interesting article though...

(couldn't find anything recent..)

[Radical Activist]

27. That's not about Iraq.

That's about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Do you want Iran to get the bomb? Do you really want a President who wouldn't at least keep that open as an option?

[1corona4u]

31. We're talking about Iran...see the post above.

[Radical Activist]

32. All the same

Do you want a President who does nothing while Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[1corona4u]

34. What I want is...

a president that knows a threat, from a non-threat. One who knows when to act, and when not to act.

I am not into this argument, so don't put me there. Someone asked for a link, I provided it.

I have nothing else to say to you.

[Radical Activist]

48. Oh my

Someone is touchy huh? "I have nothing else to say to you" :rofl:
I guess I'm not worthy for a political discussion with this high and mighty Biden supporter on a board set up for political discussion.

Any fool can put out a political argument if they aren't willing to defend it when challenged. Have fun with that.

[1corona4u]

26. I would just like to point out...

that the verbiage "voted for the war" is misleading. It was a vote for the resolution. As in "use of force". Seems everyone has extrapolated it out to be a direct vote for the war. Here's the IWR, and there were restrictions in place;


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.


107th CONGRESS

2d Session

[MGKrebs]

37. The Prime Minister of Spain said that Saddam offered to resign.

Not sure what else the legislative branch could do. They served up everything anyone could have hoped for through diplomatic pressure. The depth of the Neocon obsession rejected even this.

It amazes me that people can say we should have recognized the intensity of Bush's insanity in one breath, and in the next believe that this resolution would have affected his actions in the least.

If he was crazy enough for everyone to see it, this resolution was meaningless to him.
If he wasn't crazy, he wouldn't have attacked with or without a resolution.

Blaming Iraq on Senators is political theater.

[1corona4u]

38. Pretty much sums up how I feel about it too.

[frogcycle]

42. yep

thanks

[Egnever]

44. So if it didnt matter what they did

Why not do the right thing?

[1corona4u]

46. Which would have been.......??

[MGKrebs]

47. I think I'm making the case that some thought diplomatic pressure was the

right thing, and history seems to support that judgment.

[stickernation]

49. peace on earth

we all want peace on earth, and we must remember that we all have that in common and that we're here because Repugs simply do not seem to care about peace one iota.

i heartily agree with both sides of this argument ! !! ! i think Edwards' apology about his vote in the IWR is going to be one of the most important arguments he's going to have to make in order to become President. Whatever he says in that argument may determine whether a Repugnican or a Democrat is the President for the next four years.

Nobody should have been fooled by the IWR, but political pressures and the swirling hysteria of post-9-11 America should be taken into account, shouldn't they? I think they should.

This debate seems to boil down to the following two sides:
a) Bush was and is obviously a psycho, and never should have been given an inch of slack.
b) The vote for the IWR can be forgiven.

As I said above, I agree with both sides of the argument. It should be understood that the neocons have a very good understanding of the pressure dynamics of Senators after successful false-flag operations. Should the entire weight of the Repug lie machine press down upon one of us, perhaps we would go down fighting to the gulag. But this is nearly 2008, and our lonesome bravery in resisting the invasion has now thrived into a majority consensus.

Should we cash in our chips and stubbornly fail to support a candidate who has made powerful articulations of his regret for this oversight, we radical activists may squander a precious opportunity. Should Edwards lose in Iowa, I will swing my weight behind Obama; should Clinton triumph in the end, I will support her over a Repug.

This vote is about the future, not just about the past. We should look into candidates' pasts for evidence of what they will do in the future. John Edwards, by this point, is pretty much under oath that he will end the occupation and repair broken US diplomacy. Will he renege on these promises? No, he will not.

Whether the vote on the IWR was evil or good is a judgement with which we today have the benefit of hindsight. During the time when it was happening, were YOU calling Senators' offices and writing letters to the editor to sway their opinions? Rest assured the Rove machine was doing so. You might have been waving signs at protests, but then you were the slave of ISO-type A.N.S.W.E.R. folks who taught you that Sixties' style tactics were still relevant in the era of Rove. The point then is that it is YOU that is to blame if your Senator voted for the war.

When will AMERICANS take the blame for this war ? Not just those who supported it either - those of US who didn't do ENOUGH, or didn't take the time to research EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO SWAY WASHINGTON ? It is OUR fault because we - even we antiwar types - basically "partied" in the 90's. We cared more about whether our favorite indie band was "selling out" to a major label than we cared about Halliburton. IT IS OUR FAULT, WE THE DECADENT ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, AND WE NEED TO GROW UP AND TRULY CONSIDER WHAT TACTICS IT WILL TAKE TO STOP THIS WAR. And if those tactics are POLITICAL, we must LEARN them and not simply preach to one another at our hip little protest circles OK ?

And this is why I support Edwards. This is a guy I have met a few times now - I just graduated from UNC - and this is a guy who I trust to keep his word. And his word, according to the recent Chris Mathews interview, is that he will PULL OUT OF IRAQ FAST, not leaving bases at all. Well right on then. So he was fooled by Powell and Bush, along with the rest of the Democrats who voted for IWR. You know what ? I have been fooled by ACTIVISTS WHO WANT ME TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES THAT ARE NOT PLAYING TO REALLY FREAKING WIN.

My final point is that should Edwards win, you can count on Edwards supporters to HOLD HIM TO HIS PROMISES. What other candidate has made real promises that I really care about that I can hold them to once elected? What other candidate is PLAYING TO WIN ON A BUDGET like John Edwards? That kind of attitude is exactly why I started a small business rather than work for some corporation, and that kind of attitude is why Edwards will not give a rat's ass about what the corporations tell him to do once elected.

So Obama is a fine candidate for some, because he never voted for the IWR. I think Edwards is more than capable of handling any "waffling" attacks made against him, as he is thoroughly versed in the deceptions and lies of the Cheney mafia and can use such attacks to throw that deception into a very clear light for all the nation and world to see. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HIM DEBATE WHOEVER THE REPUGS BARF UP AFTER THE PRIMARIES. Such a debate in my opinion will change the world !!!

- s
"many of you are educated, open your mouths and speak" - krs-one