I have a real problem with anyone who voted for this war

[blues90]

Many of these politicians who voted for this war now say they would not now or appologize now and say we need to pull our nd yet they have the nerve to say trust them .

These same Dems let Feingold hanging out in the breeze except for Boxer and then they left Conyers standing out in the wind as well . What the hell was that ?

How will they ammend this in the minds of all of those who have lost friends or family due to their insane political decissions .

Many , many citizens knew this attack on Iraq was wrong , they knew so how could any politician not know more about the reality of going to Iraq ?

I just don't have much faith in back tracking once the damage has been done . I don't have much faith in america and I was born here .

I don;t have any faith in politicians even the dems who now say they are so sorry they voted for this attack .

A politician will always be a politician which is defined most often as a liar .

[MADem]

1. And you will never forgive them, even if they express regret?

Gee, good thing YOU aren't God, we'd all be fucked! No mistakes allowed, even if you are lied to and base your actions on bullshit transmitted by a mendacious leader! Golly!

You have every right to your view, but it is unhelpful to the situation we face. "Fuck them all" isn't going to bring the troops home, either.

[blues90]

7. Pretty big mistake , don't you think ?

I don't like liars . How can anyone stand there now and still try to back track and still go foreward with any sort of trust without a hit of doubt by running ahead in time .

My point is they had to know bush could not be trusted even more so than the common citizen , they knew .

I can bet you anyone who was out there protesting this horrid shock and awe on march 20 2003 has not faith in being told the truth after this . They may have voted democratic as they and I always have since this was the only option . This however does not mean they have trust in these politicians .

[MADem]

10. If you don't like liars, take it up with the Liar in Chief

And no, they did not "have to know" that the Shit couldn't be trusted. Most people, including those dreaded politicians, assume that elevation to the presidency brings down a sense of caring, concern, history, weight and deliberation on the individual taking office, and that even the lightest of lightweights will do their duty with measured due diligence.

I happen to trust my senators, and in fact, the bulk of the delegation from my state. I do think they put the needs of their constituents first.

[blues90]

13. The house reps should know more than the people

If not then what are they doing there in the first place ?

Bush came along almost out of nowhere and did not bring any reason to instill trust at all . He was a well known executioner and a well known failure as well as a well known drug user something that Clinton was held to the fire to , maybe inhaling MJ . Bush comes along and he was born again and this washed away his past and people bought this crap .

It was not bush alone who got us into this war but he played a huge part in instilling fear as well as many others who still are in power .

To become president don;t you feel before they are elevated to some high position of trust that their past should be looked at ? Don;t you feel most on the hill knew his past or should have least considered it before backing this war ?

Just to get a simple job these days they do background checks .

[MADem]

22. Gee, I thought what they were doing there is representing us. That's what mine does.

He doesn't "know more" than his constituents, which is why he's out in the district constantly meeting with people to get THEIR views, so he can bring them back to the Hill. They serve US, not the other way around. If they return to Congress, it is because WE sent them back there.

And yes, Bush is a loser and an asshole, and he's rich and had powerful backers who sold him as a plainspoken Texan who was a compassionate conservative. They had lots of money and a great sales team, and they weren't afraid to use dirty tricks when it suited them. But guess what? That's politics. Rather than just cry about politicians, write to your representatives and encourage them to revisit campaign finance reform. If you don't like your rep, work for his opponent in the next cycle.

Like it or not, there's no requirement for a candidate's background check written into the Constitution. Why? Because We, The People are the employer. If the voters wanted Britney Spears for President, they could have her once she's old enough.

Lyndon Johnson was a huge election cheat, falsely accused one opponent of being a pigfucker, was blind as a bat regarding Vietnam, yet he signed some of the most sweeping and important civil rights legislation this country has ever seen. He wasn't "all bad" or "all good." He did understand the weight of the presidency, and when he realized he had failed in prosecuting Vietnam, he declined to run for a second term. Had anyone done a "background check" on Lyndon, you might be going to see "Night at the Museum" in a segregated movie theater.

Your characterization of people, and presidents, as all good or all bad is a bit, well, youthful, and your suggestion that legislators accept or reject ideas based solely on a President's past certainly doesn't jive with the "second chance/forgiveness society" of the last half century. Certainly, Clinton would have been equally fucked under your standard, given his wild past, but he managed to get alot done even with a divided Congress. Kennedy would have been excoriated. Hell, the cleanest and most moral one of the lot in his youth was Tricky Dick, and we saw how well he turned out.

[wuushew]

29. Except that the POTUS is a tool of the Congress in matters of war

Unfortunately sometime in the 20th century the nature of war and the growing powers of the executive branch transformed the position of President into something resembling that of a war god.

The original intent of the founding fathers was for the Commander and Chief to merely execute the will of the Congress, akin to Washington's role in relation to the Continental Congress. Remember the War of 1812 was asked for by the Congress not the President.

The IWR was a legitimatizing of preemption by the Congress and would have been immoral both if WMD had or had not been found.

[MADem]

30. Only Congress can declare war, but we do "police actions" instead

So the whole construct is meaningless nowadays. The fact that WMD were NOT found, though, might be a good thing through the long lens of history. It may reverse the trend of President-King that has been creeping along at a quick clip in recent decades.

[irislake]

23. Never mind the troops

Many Americans, certainly not all, think American deaths are more lamentable that Iraqi deaths. But to outsiders, don't forget, given the immorality of the invasion and the vast power of American military it is difficult not to feel more heartache for the little guy --- especially all those innocent children. I can't help feeling it is really Marie Antoinettish for those Dems to say, "Gosh, had I only know blah blah blah" when Cheney/Bush/Rummy have utterly utterly destroyed that country far beyond anything Saddam did or might have done. I honestly don't think they feel nearly enough guilt or responsibility for the enormity of what they have done to Iraq. It is tragic beyond description and they are partly responsible. Forgive that? Not me. No excuse for it. I think their political careers matter more than 665 hundred dead Iraqis plus the demolition of the countries infrastructure treasures and culture. Sickening really. And they have also destroyed America's reputation in the world.

[MADem]

33. Sorry, I am not even going there. You want to talk about that, start a separate thread

It's a helluva leap from a poster averring that politicians should not be forgiven to accusing "many Americans" of caring more about American deaths than Iraqi deaths. I'll bet there are at least a "few Canadians" that find Canadian deaths more lamentable as well. Nationalism is found all around the globe, and it is unsurprising.

You get nowhere when you tar an entire country with the sins of a few who actually held power, had the correct information, and chose to blatantly LIE to achieve their goals. That's where the blame belongs, with those bastards, not with "the American people."

When someone looks you in the eye and lies to you, with all sincerity, and puts Beloved Colin Powell, Mister Integrity up in front of the UN Security Council to further buttress the lie, I can see how some might be conned.

I was not conned, ever, but in the back of my mind, I wondered if my view could be changed with a bit of intelligence that perhaps I didn't have access to...who knows what they got in those closed-door briefings? Who knows what lies they were told that are still classified, and we have yet to hear?

Quite honestly, these people in the "there's no difference between the parties" crowd seem to be more interested in supressing discussion, disrupting party unity, and thwarting goals going towards 08. It almost a cynically joyful exercise for them. I wonder why they bother to hang around with Democrats, seeing as they hate them so much and would like them all gone. It's very curious.

[irislake]

42. There is absolutely no WAY

I accused Americans as a country of being insensitive to the deaths of 665 hundred thousands Iraqis. I said "many Americans". Unfortunately too many mainstream pundits -- for example on FOX and CNN -- with their ethnocentric emphasis do give the misleading impression that only American deaths matter to Americans and Iraqi deaths are irrelevent if not desirable.

Is it not a deliberate policy of Bush/Cheney government and MSM to play down the numbers? More so numbers of Iraqi deaths? (Bush denied the Lancet and John Hopkins estimates of Iraqi deaths.)Why might that be? And why are pictures of the horrific events kept off MSM? Because Americans would be appalled and would not tolerate it. The famous picture of the naked Vietnamese girl running down the road so outraged Americans that it was the beginning of the end of the War in Vietnam, I read.

So sorry if you thought I was being critical of the American people. I am a regular on DU in spite of low number of posts since 2001 and I am well aware of the despair and compassion DUers experience concerning the deaths of ordinary Iraqi citizens.

Sorry but I was talking about your Democratic politicians when I say they are morally reprehensible and opportunistic or stupid to have voted for a war that would result in so much loss of life.

But it is true that outsiders in general being exposed to Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limbaugh's and "Bring 'em On Bush" and Ann Coulter wanting to kill all "rag heads" and even mildly ethocentric media figures like Paula Zahn may get a mistaken impression and feel some repugnance. Even so I never ever believed this attitude was true of the American people. Period.

It is also true that it's natural to have more sympathy for the underdog than a country perceived to be a bully. Which voices to you think are heard loudest outside your country? The loud mouths and bigots, unfortunately. But most people in the world understand that the American people are not Bill O'Reilly. That is mainly because of the internet and the alternate news sources.

As for the Democrats -- I wait to see if they will get America out of Iraq in any kind of hurry. How well I understand that the will of the people is to end that war and that the American people never wanted to go in there in the first place. I don't think your politicians serve you well. I hope you succeed in reforming the system so that they are not corporate controlled.

One last comment I believe that any normal person feels completely torn up and grief stricken witnessing the death and suffering of ANY other human anywhere. No I do not believe an American feels worse if it's an American. Think about it. I'm sure you have felt totally decimated seeing pictures of weeping Iraqi mothers and fathers and relatives. Bet it didn't make any difference to you whatever that they weren't American.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I agree.

We put them in charge to take care of the place, and then they go and fuck up and kill 3,000 Americans.

Imagine if you went to work on day, screwed something up, and killed 3,000 Americans.

What, are we just supposed to accept "I'm sorry?"

[lancdem]

5. This is Bush's war, and his alone

He's made all the decisions that have gotten us in this mess. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Oh, it's a lot more than just Bush.

That's a bit like saying the Holocaust was just Hitler's fault.

[TahitiNut]

14. Unless and until he's imprisoned, that's just bullshit.

It's simple. Complicity is shared guilt. A failure to perform their Constitutional duty amd bring these war criminals to justice is complicity.

Many things aren't as simple as they appear. This one really is simple, no matter how much people rationalize their cowardice in the performance of their duty.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Save your Faith for God

Politicians are human beings. I look at more than one issue when I vote.

[lancdem]

4. I'm more flexible on the issue

Sorry. A lot of Americans have changed their minds, too, now that they've seen how Bush has royally screwed it up. I was hardly a gung-ho war supporter, but even I didn't know it would go this wrong.

[blues90]

9. Yeah they changed their minds after voting the freaks in again

Bush did steal the 2004 election but enough of these mind changers voted for bush again in 2004 .

Now war is a well known looser since vietnam alone so here is the lesson no one learned unless those who voted where to young or older and ignorent to want this disaster .

Sorry , I am not a god believer just a human with a conscience and common sense .

[eleny]

8. Who do you support for President in "08?

[blues90]

15. I have no idea

I feel there is enough right now to get through and restore if possible before I look that far ahead . I know who I don't want by their history alone and so far none of the others look good to me .

[eleny]

25. This is probably why governors have an easier time running

No congressional votes on the record to haunt them.

Thanks for your reply!

[indepat]

11. I too have a problem with anyone who voted, actually gave a blank check, for war: told my dino

Congress critter he had probably lost my vote in perpetuity for so voting and now he is out of office.

[SaveElmer]

12. Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in 1942...

Calling for the internment of 120,000 Japanese American citizens...

Would you have voted for him in 1944?

[blues90]

19. Tough question

I don't agree with what he did at all . If we were truly attacked on pearl harbor and since were at war because of this in true sense we were attacked then we were at war for our defense and the Japanese in our country could not be trusted .

The Japanese were not bombed and tortured that were detained here however I do not agree with this decision .

If anyone knew Truman would bomb Japan since he was vice then we could have avoided this horrid event . I doubt if FDR would have made this decision .

Basically FDR was not a war president by choice and bush was so I would have to answer yes to your question .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. My father voted for Norman Thomas in 1944.

Of course, being a Socialist, he always voted Socialist.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Nobody that voted for the IWR saved our democracy and lead us to defeat fascism

Not to mention gave us a strong middle class for decades.

FDR's accomplishments and faults are so much greater than any member of congress in 2002 that they can't be compared on the same scale.

[bluewave]

16. The assertion that they were mislead is nonsense.

I wasn't mislead, and I'm just a lowly peon and not privy to secret intelligence. Jim McDermott (from my state) knew it. Russ Feingold knew it.

People like Hillary, Feinstein, et al. are disgusting and have no business considering themselves as part of the "leadership" of the Dem party.

[blues90]

18. I agree completely

[irislake]

24. Absolutely

Anybody who was misled damn well wanted to be misled or was too chicken to risk his/her political career or too stupid to be a politician. The facts were always easily available --- and I mean "easily".

[paulk]

28. if you weren't "privy to secret intelligence"

how would you know if you were mislead of not?

[MADem]

34. That is an excellent question.

Maybe it's a super-secret knowitall hat that imparts this knowledge! Magically!!!

All I know is that I wasn't in the Senate or House intel briefings--and neither were the CSPAN cameras, because that all took place behind closed doors. We don't even know what is still classified at this point in time.

[paulk]

40. like this hat?

:tinfoilhat:

[MADem]

43. Indeed!!!!! NT

[blues90]

37. Common sense would be enough

If the many citizens did not want or support this attack based soley on their desire not to attack a defenseless country , why would the reps simply allow this without much more proof of the expressed WMD's ?

What was the rush , anyone with half brain knew Iraq was not an immediate threat to the USA . They should have taken the time to wait for actual proof , not just take the word of Powell and others who kept up the propaganda of fear .

People fell for the mushroom cloud theory .

[paulk]

39. it was Bush who didn't take the time to wait for actual proof

he's the one who pulled the inspectors out.

I assume that's who you are referring to?

[blues90]

41. bush did pull the inspectors out but

He did get the house to approve the attack and fund it . Also he fired anyone who advised there were no WMD's like Clark .

There was F-911 and the three Greenwald films with much of this .

Also all we had were drawings of the said mobile nuclear facilities which were a real joke , no actual photo's of anything they described as WMD's .

[paulk]

44. many of those in Congress voted yes on the IWR

to get those inspectors in. That's how they viewed their vote.
And, once again, you have already admitted that you weren't privy to the classified information they were given. We don't even know what lies they were told.

Bush lied. People died.


This is BUSH'S war.


End of story.

[blues90]

45. No argument that it's bushs war

No I did'nt have the secrete info but that's my point . Many citizens felt this was wrong to attack Iraq because there was no rush to do it . Everyone knew there were no bombs capable of reacing the US and this was the main fear as much as the fear that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 .

Now if the reps were so stupid to buy into fear themselves and thought they were protecting the US from Iraq terrorist attacks then they made a huge mistake . I feel they voted strickly for political reasons and not for realistic facts based on the intelligence reports .

They ignored Clark too and they ignored the people they represent and the other nations who were protesting this attack as well . Now to me they don;t look very good with their hind sight .

[LSK]

32. so you read the NIE even thou it wasnt released to public till summer 2003???

:shrug:

[MADem]

35. It's MAGIC, you see! Or a time machine!!! NT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Politicians playing politics with lives. Then using the "stupid" defense.

Followed by the "Oh, I'm sorry, I was too stupid to realize that Bush was intent on going to war no matter what."

Not too stupid to follow the polls and suddenly seeing the light when it's politically advantageous to do so.

[irislake]

21. I agree

It wasn't difficult to learn that there were no WMD and even if there were, so what? Was American really in any danger? But there was enough reliable information out there to make it obvious that Bush was determined to invade using WMD as pretext. Most American citizens and citizens all over the world (including British citizens) were against the invasion. The UN was against. I can understand Republicans going along with Bush but why would Democrats fall for such lies? I like to think that people chosen as leaders are not more credulous and trusting than the citizens. And why did the Dems trust Bush of all people after the 2000 election stunt? I really wonder what in God's name they were thinking.

[peacetalksforall]

27. I agree. I've been bitter and unforgiving since I heard/saw their

votes. The only time I backed off was to vote for Kerry.

As each day goes by, I like, admire, embrace people with GUTS; people who take an honorable position.

Paul Wellstone

. First vote in the Senate = against Iraq War 1.
. Last vote in the Senate - against Iraq War 2.

Russ Feingold

. Only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. (If memory serves me.)

Every leader should take a position that they will never vote for killing and then be persuaded to do it ONLY because of UNordinary circumstances. Especially when it involves killing innocents.

One of those propagandist operatives at the AEI meeting this morning promised that their would be more deaths of American soldiers if they and Bush get their surge.

[LSK]

31. they left Feingold hanging out in the breeze????

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/iraq/?sc=e.20060620

[blues90]

36. yes , when Feingold wanted to censor bush

[Le Taz Hot]

38. It's a deal killer for me.

There are those rare do-or-die moments in history where making a stand is critical. The IWR was one of those times. Anyone who voted "yes" was either incompetent as ALL the information countering what was being fed to us out of the WH was readily available OR they were trying to save their political asses for fear of being seen as "unpatriotic" which means they put politics before country thereby being devoid of honor.

You are not alone, my friend. There are LOTS of us who feel that way. Millions as a matter of fact.