Do you think each Dem who voted yes should say they were wrong, as JE did?

I'm not thumping for John Edwards, but I admire him so much for being one of the earliest ones and only ones to emphatically stand up like he has and admit without reservation that he was dead wrong for voting yes on the IWR. It took character and guts to do it the way he did and as early as he did. He repeated it just as emphatically again today on Meet the Press.

He didn't beat around the bush either, by trying to justify his original vote in any way or by tempering his answer to make it look like he could still go either way on it depending on how things work out. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002" or "I was wrong", period.

Wouldn't it be nice if each and every one of our Democrats took the same stance? The more of them who do so, the more people will start asking why they could have been so wrong. And the more people who start asking questions, the more it will all fall back on Bush's shoulders that he lied about the whole goddamn thing to get them to vote that way.

What I like with the way Edwards admitted his mistake is how he didn't blame anyone but himself for making the mistake. By not blaming anyone but himself, he actually forced Russert to suggest to Edwards that he voted "yes" based on faulty information by Bush...to which Edwards then agreed, of course.

Anyway, instead of giving us the usual politically garbled answers as to why they voted for the IWR, do you think it would be in our best interests if they all stood up up like Edwards and said very specifically with guts and conviction, "I made a bad mistake when I voted for the IWR" or "I was dead wrong!"?

voted for this crap in the first place.

I mean, they didn't listen to the people - Scott Ritter, Wesley Clark, Ambassador Wilson - who TOLD them there was no reason to go into this war. Why? Why didn't they listen?

I would like an apology, but I think they should also explain WHY they didn't listen to the likes of Ritter, Clark and Wilson. Why?

They can't take their vote back, but they can admit they were wrong. It would be a step in the right direction, and God knows we need to take any steps in the right direction we can.

And since none of us can change the past, admitting past mistakes is an excellent starting point for the future. It is almost more important for those who made mistakes though to take the lead now in investigating the circumstances that led them to make that mistake in the first place. That is the next step after admitting a mistake, learning the full lesson of how that mistake got made, accepting responsibility not only for having made the mistake, but also for their role in allowing that mistake to have happened in the first place. Was it misplaced trust, a systemic flaw in the way information is handled, the way Congress is or is not Constitutionally involved in matters of war and peace, willful abuse of power by the Executive branch, how did we go so wrong on Iraq?

Why was it so many otherwise seemingly good men and women made that bad decision? Just saying it was a mistake isn't enough. It was a horrendous mistake and Edwards was by no means alone in making it and I don't think he should be singled out for it. Like you say, he admits it. But we have to study that mistake and draw all of the lessons that need to be learned from it before anyone's apology is good enough. Otherwise how can we confident that a similar mistake, regarding North Korea or Iran for example, might not happen in the future? How was our Congress misled? How Edwards was misled is the piece of the puzzle that he is best positioned to answer. Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence committee after all.

once enough people have admitted the mistake, then you can move on and figure out WHY so many intelligent people made that mistake and THEN people will start drawing the conclusion on their own that Bush's lies were the single-most important factor as to why so many people voted the way they did.....because those people were duped.

By publicly admitting our mistakes, it also half closes the door on making a similar deadly mistake in the future.

You're right, for sure. It has to go much further than admitting they wrong, but that's a good start. I always enjoy your posts, btw.

I'm glad he stepped up on that. Now we have to go back and nail this administration for forcing our nation into war under false premises, and yes, learn all the lessons from how Congress got out maneuvered last time.

However the margin for error in these activities is to slim, and our elected representatives must be made keenly aware of the repercussions of their actions. Obviously the result of their error in being misled on Iraq has had disastrous results in terms of loss of life, human suffering and the squandering of resources. But what this has done to the body politic is immeasurable. How many people do you suppose, with little more information than their senators vote, made their decision about our involvement in Iraq? I agree that most Americans spend precious little time learning the facts for themselves, but that's the way it is. People are being barraged with propaganda from the media that sways their opinion. When their representatives rubberstamp that propaganda, what other outcome can we expect. We deserve better from those who serve us, and we need to keep the pressure on to let them know that they are accountable.

I think that's the focus.

He was the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. Actually, he must have been the chairman of the committee; the Dems were in control of the Senate back then!

The problem with John Edwards is that unbeknownst to most North Carolinians, he was not attending a lot of these intelligence hearings because he was gearing up for his Presidential run. He was already spending a lot of time in Iowa and New Hampshire, and going to various out-of-state fundraisers. Most of us here in North Carolina had no clue that this was happening.

he was. You don't have to go to the Intelligence meetings to get the intelligence reports. Edwards voted for the resolution BEFORE he started running for President. And his attendance record for the first 4 years in the senate was: 99%!!

I, too would like it if all the supposed dems in congress would admit they were wrong, but I also like the Quayle/Jeb '08 ticket and that ticket has about as much chance as happening as all the Joe Libermans saying they were wrong.

I have to come clean as this is my first post to the DU - I am an Edwards supporter and will be as I think the man has flaws, admits to them, has a great family and has come up from the ranks and is NOT one of the bluebloods born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is a self made man, living the American Dream and before anyone starts in about being a lawyer, I can think of several less 'honorable' careers....plus his lawyering was all for the little guy against big companies....

So he wasn't in NC all the time when he was a sitting Senator. Not many are if you want to be totally truthful about it.

I think the entire lot needs to be cleared out and we need to start over. Pelosi and Reed do NOT speak for me...hell, I don't even think they know who they speak for anymore most of the time.

John Edwards looks like the much bigger person in this interview. He's not trying to make excuses or blame the Republicans. He's actually offering up ideas.

he deserves praise for being one of the first ones to get out there and take the blame on himself!

I guess.

John Edwards has really only been more clever at reading the tea leaves, not to mention POLLS than the others. Yes, I'm glad he's done it, but it's not all that principled or risky or courageous a move. It just isn't.

with this "well you voted to give the president the authority to use force against Iraq" always is not inclusive of the operative modifying prepositional phrase. . ."WITH UN APPROVAL."

THE UN NEVER GAVE THAT APPROVAL even after Colin Powell's totally hyped presentation.

14:41 my butt. Inspectors were allowed back in and were doing their jobs.

So in response I would think that if it is pointed out that if those who voted for it had known that * was going to not abide by the terms of that resolution they wouldn't have granted him that authority in the first place. Then the whole argument goes POOF. It becomes clearly evident that * abused that authority in total willful arrogance versus valueing the wisdom of the global community

You explain it better than any of them ever have. That's all they need to do.

:shrug:

and in the case of war hawks like Hillary, Bayh, and Biden, their "Road to Damascus" conversions would be more reason to despise them!

John Edwards did good today on MTP!

and I think it was cross posted in DU as well.

JE's suggestion of removing American corporations from Iraq went like a dead balloon on Wall Street.

What a strange concept to take responsibility for one's mistakes!

We need honesty and admitting a mistake is a big part of being honest.

Lies and coverups are are characteristics of weak leadership.

Honesty and moral leadership is what we need. And pretty clear that Edwards is where we can find it.

We need someone who, unlike Bush, can admit a mistake. His lack of judgment in voting for the war in Iraq was my main reservation about Edwards. The fact that he recognizes his mistake and is man enough to admit it makes me have a lot of respect for the man.

It would have taken a lot of courage to vote against the IWR in the first place. This is shameless ass covering, self-promoting and pandering.

Ride with the wind, Johnny, ride with the wind!

Everytime I see you in an Edwards topic... it is the same old character assasination. Give it up!

And not just this, it takes a lot of courage to take up poverty as an issue (way before Katrina) when it is considered politically fruitless. You seem to see everything about Edwards from such a biased lens that it is hard for you to even see something that everyone can commend him for.

my liver would feel a lot better if I did, but, when it comes down to brass tacks, I just can't seem to fathom how so many people fall for this guy's transparent Pollyana pablum. He has no credibilty here. He is simply playing politics, in the most cynical form imaginable. But, he is a politician, after all, and politicians will do that.

Edwards is hardly the only politician who has made an issue out of poverty. He does seem to be one of the few who currently who get any publicity out of it, positive publicity at that. If the publicity were negative, or non-existent, you'd soon find Mr. Edwards on another soap-box.

Biased? Yeah, you bet! I tend to be skeptical of politicians in general; I take nothing any of them do at face value. I wouldn't trust this guy as far as I could throw him. Maybe I should work at making myself more susceptible to charisma.

And it ain't charisma, I find the guy to be genuinely sincere and very intelligent. You don't? Fine. I can't understand your perception of him, and you probably can't mine. From where I stand, I can only hope that you'll see the light some day.

That until one has been actually present in the room when JRE is speaking to a crowd, and has met him personally it is hard to understand what many of us see in him: the man is good to his core. And for me, it's more than charisma, it's about a man with conviction (in a positive way) in his soul to do better...and what's right for those of us who believe most of our congress and certainly not this president or his new minions on SCOTUS have any respect or ear for the average citizen in our country. JRE is an excellent listener. He posits this whole mess as a lack of moral leadership. I agree with him, and most of the time, he speaks for me.

So American Dream, it's my view that until they feel that experience--in addition to thinking--it's difficult to convince any blogger otherwise.



Hope is on the Way

(photo taken by Serb Hall Celebrator, OAC blogger, 2/2006)

in the Georgetown speech where he said the vote was wrong and presented the first fullblown exit plan for Iraq. (Even then, Kerry's error was to trust Bush; Edwards was actually for war after it started and after there were found to be no WMD.)

Kerry himself said that knowing what he knows today, he would still have voted for the war. He said that during the election; please stop the spin. Both these guys were for the war, and they both admit their mistake. Edwards, however, is talking the blame entirely on himself... good for him.

Kerry did defend "giving the authority". But even before the war started he publicly in an op-ed and in a speech spoke against going to war. He got in trouble with the RW for calling for regime change at home. There are many Kerry comments in the fall of 2002 where he was cautiously optimistic that they could avoid war through the inspectors and diplomacy. There is no quote anywhere where he said he would vote for the war.

The fact is that there are MANY JE quotes where he was actively in favor of the war in 2003.

Kerry also said that he took his share of responsibility and said his vote was wrong. This was in front of a large audience at Georgetown University. Kerry's admission was sincere and complete. He took responsibility FOR WHAT HE DID. The fact was that if Kerry were Presendent in 2003, from his statements AT THE TIME of ivasion, it is 100% clear he would not have attacked.

From Edwards' statements on an Oct Hardball, he might have. He said that the WMD were not the only issue. In a way, Edwards' admission of being wrong was easier because he was for the war. Kerry was wrong to think that they could negotiate a web of constraints that would push Bush to the UN and to using diplomatic means - even though that is what Powell and Bush were suggesting the IWR was.)

and work to make it happen, then there words will match the latest rhetoric. it was morally reprehensible to vote aye on that. An apology now is graciously accepted, but the responsibility for atonement is not mitigated because they admit an error. That error, mistake or whatever cost people their lives.

WMD Part 2 be done - only 9 other Senators signed it. In the letter he referenced the DSM which indicated that the course was already set and the Bush administration fixed the intelligence.

If you were going to impeach Bush on this, having this investigation would be the likely first step. I think it's considered improper for a Senator to call for impeachment - it starts in the house and the Senate then votes on it.

Neither Kerry nor JRE was for the war. They both gave a yes vote to authorize the President to use force on Iraq if absolutely necessary.

I like both men. I happen to think JRE was a little more forthright about it in the past few months. He's had time to think about it more. Today he said he was wrong at the time, made a mistake in voting for authorizing the force based on what was presented to Congress and him at the time. He wishes he had voted differently. He cannot take back his vote, but he can speak out what he believes is to be the truth. That is what moral leadership entails: telling the truth.

Saying I was wrong is different, more powerful than saying "I regret my decision." It's something I would want my spouse or family to do; Edwards is treating the average citizen with the upmost respect with those words.

This is the time for more political leaders to speak up, so to answer the question, I hope more Dems with a conscience will do what John Edwards has been doing in the past few months.

even to saying he accepts his share of responsibility.

Edwards, who co-sponsored the IWR and continued to actively back going to war throughout 2003 has said that he was wrong. He can see that we made a mess of it. I don't doubt that he means this. I think this statement is real and also helps him politically.

Kerry's statement was likely far harder for him to say. From everything he ever said, he wouldn't have chosen to go to war. What he has said is that his reason for voting for the IWR was wrong - he is an extremely intelligent man and admitting that he trusted Bush to do what he publicly said he would has to be hard.

If you saw Kerry's Georgetown speech, the look on his face as he said he took responsibility for his share of this told it all - even without knowing his history, this would have been painful to watch.

Or to the transcript? Your post has piqued my interest!


TIA, Benny

It really is a wonderful speech. Full speech at the link, but I think this is the part that was referenced.

I appreciate it. I won't quibble more about the sincerity (I know Kerry was sincere); my post was about the differences in how the message was communicated. This speech by Kerry supports my premise, I believe:

Kerry: The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not.

Contrast:

JRE on MTP

MR. RUSSERT: In October--I'm sorry, in February of `02, you said, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." Do you believe that was accurate?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. No, it's not accurate. I was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: Just dead wrong.

SEN. EDWARDS: I was wrong. Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Based on faulty intelligence.

SEN. EDWARDS: Based on the information. It wasn't just me--the information I got, the information that the Congress got.

He didn't lay the whole thing on Bush or anyone else. He made up his mind independently at the time, and made a mistake.

Saying you are wrong is very different from "I regret...". It's more personable to the average citizen. Kerry's message communicates to the mind (one of the reasons I like him) but (and it's just my view) that Edwards communicated from and to the heart. To re-gain someone's trust, the phrase, "I was wrong" is an apology--and seldom does any politican says that on National TV/MSM--unless s/he means it.

<snip>
Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

Comeon, Benny. I can give you more very similar statements. "I made a mistake.", "I regret my vote."

BTW, I disagree that "I was wrong" is an apology. Regret is apology. Wrong is incorrect.

That said, there's really no sense parsing words. I think they both believe they were wrong and are sorry they voted the way they did, and I admire both of them.

It's really not that special a phrase.

He was misled. Same as JK. They were both wrong, they were both misled, they both made a mistake, and I'm certain they both sincerely regret their votes.
That's good enough for me.
It's bush* who started this war, not JK and JE. That's where the blame should rest, IMO.

I like Kerry--and I voted for him. I wish he were our President today. Admittedly, I wish he would have fought a little more for getting the truth out about the voting in Ohio, but it was difficult to obtain from Diebold, when they refused to give out data and the voting czar was working for Bush's Ohio campaign, according to Elizabeth Edwards.


Each team brings strengths:

Kerry: More experience in gov't; introverted, thinker, ivy league connections (powerful--especially in terms of fundraising)
Edwards: More fresh approaches; extraverted, more heart (and more connected with regular people)

Both Elizabeth and Theresa said publicly they respected each other very much.

I certainly do not intend to divide...it's just to point out our communication differences. I happen to find JRE's more appealing to me. I like Kerry, and I have good friends who got to have a beer or two with him awhile back. I haven't met him, so I've missed out on the personal experience that I spoke of on another post. My cat is a big Kerry supporter as she was born in Massachusetts and a thinker; my other cat is more like JRE's son, Jack. :-)

I was there.
:beer:

Rox63..

I've had the pleasure of meeting up with Rox a couple times.
She's a great person.

Glad you have met Rox63

One was a prepared speech - even there you leave out the most relevant line:

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility

Edwards in November simply wrote it as an op-ed. What you are quoting is an interview - where he was asked questions point blank. Kerry was interviewed around after he gave this speech - and in answer to questions reiterated that he thinks he should have voted against it.

First off, it's a misquote - he said "vote to give the authority" not "for war". Second, Your first sentence reads like it's a current opinion whereas Kerry in September and October repeatedly said he would not have gone to war.

Why did Kerry call for regime change here in March 2003 if he was not angry that Bush went to war? Edwards in a Hardball interview 9 months after the war started still insisted it was important to be fighting there. He also said he hadn't believed there were necessarily WMD but that there were other reasons. (The interview was posted on dKos in Nov when his op-ed came out.)

Kerry said he "accepted his share of responsibility" - which sounds like blaming himself, every bit as much as "I was wrong".

in voting to authorize Bush's war, so how can I give him credit for that? I appreciate what he said in the Georgetown speech you referred to, but saying that "the vote was wrong" is not the same as saying "I was wrong" or "I made a bad mistake when I voted yes".

Anyway, my point about Edwards was only that I think it's special that he said what he did in the manner he said. He made no ifs, ands, or buts about it. "I was wrong". "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002".

What I feel is so important is that he's placing the blame upon himself for the vote, regardless of whether the vote was good, bad, or ugly. If all our senators who voted yes did what Edwards did, then people would start asking more questions about Bush's lies that got everyone to make such a bad mistake in the first place.

Also, by getting it right out there in the open how you feel it was wrong and how it was a bad mistake you made, that puts yourself in a position where you can move on and never have to make any future justifications to stay in Iraq. I wish all our people who voted yes would come out admitting how wrong they were to vote yes like Edwards did. I wrote a very short letter (not an email) today that I'm planning on sending to my senator tomorrow urging her to admit her mistake, just the same as Edwards did.

You brought up Kerry, specifically. I can kind of understand the pressure all these people were under when they voted yes, especially for a combat veteran and war hero like Kerry. After all, Bush's lies and propaganda were stirring the country's blood into a boil, 9-11 was only a year prior to the vote, and because of Bush people were out for cowboy justice, even if it was against a country that had nothing to do with any of it, unfortunately for Iraq. Just the same, they voted yes. They can't take that vote back, but they can admit THEY were wrong and that they made a mistake. By doing so it would enable them to move on and THEN they could denounce staying there another minute with a clear conscience. Sorry if I got rambling here.

goes beyond I was wrong. It followed saying thought it was the wrong way to vote.

This is stupid. If you can't get that Kerry said he was wrong to vote for the IWR from what he said at Georgetown, it's because you have an agenda.

There are no magic words. To me, "I ws wrong" sounded cavalier and political when I read it. Edwards was on the intelligence committe and saw more information, he co-sposored the bill and SUPPORTED the war for at least the first 9 months. Kerry was clearly one of the most troubled voting for the bill - read his floor speech. This was a no win bill that Edwards co-sponsored. Kerry's speech would have needed very little re-write for a no vote. He promised to call Bush if he violated the condidtions - and he did.

Maybe you should consider why you immediately forgive Edwards, but not Kerry.

Interesting.

I already told you that I appreciated what Kerry said in that Georgetown speech that you referred to.

Amazing how just because someone praises someone other than John Kerry, they've got an agenda.

what Kerry said in those 2 paragraphs as the equivilent to "I was wrong".

What I had a problem with is you stating that JE said he was wrong and that all others should do the same. Kerry had already admitted the same things and in fact went further to say fe accepted responsibility and that the important thing was to fix it going forward. He then explained a well crafted exit plan. Yet, you say this didn't compare to a simple "I was wrong".

My problem was not that you praise JE - but that you refuse to consider that Harkin, Rockefellow, and Kerry ALL in their own ways said this before JE.

convey across a message board what's really going on in all of our minds.

I'm sorry if I inadvertantly misconstrued your message and interpreted what Kerry said in those paragraphs as not being the same thing Edwards said in the same manner that Edwards said it. Initially, I had no intentions of comparing what Edwards said to what Kerry said.

"Yet, you say this didn't compare to a simple "I was wrong".

I didn't say that what Kerry said didn't 'compare' (as in meaning one being better than the other). I said I didn't think it was the 'same' (as in they were different). Having said that, I simply like the way Edwards said it better than the way that anyone else explained it.

It's clearly a personal thing. The only point I would make is that your OP said JE did this and so should everyone else. But (everyone else) should do this in the way that is genuine to them.

Kerry's words do boil down to the same thing and he did accept responsibility. He also worked very hard on a brilliant exit plan - pieces of which have since turned up in the suggestions of others. Kerry has also been very actively working on legislation that benefits veterans.

I do remember seeing him sometime last year on "Road to the White House" and someone asked him about his IWR vote and he kinda stumbled around it than. Than a little bit later he came out and said what he did.

Although I think it was a political decision by all those
authorizing force after other steps, it's
easy to use the other talking points that this
illegal and immoral invasion, occupation, and
enormous costs to lives and money were due to
an incompetent administration, no planning in
regards to insurgency, stolen monies and depleted
funding to domestic programs that have cost
real lives and harm in this country, like the
whole Katrina disaster.

who can admit they are wrong, than for people who either ignore the "elephant in the room" or insist on "staying the course" in a feeble attempt to look strong.

It is unfortunate that this vote gets portrayed as "for or against invading Iraq", when as others point out, it was simply to strengthen a negotiating position by giving the president authority to launch one as a last resort.

Some have made the calculation that the American voter is not subtle enough to understand what the vote was about. Since the vote is depicted as quoted above, it is easier to pass on the explanation and simply say, "I was wrong" since that takes fewer words to say, and is easier to understand, than attempting to explain what the vote was really about.

It is not a "politically garbled answer" to state that the vote was not in favor of invading Iraq.

Hussein was using ambiguity as a deterrent tactic. One of the questions about his behavior is "If he didn't have WMD, then why was he acting deceptive." The point is that he didn't have them, and the deception was intended to raise doubt as to whether he did nor didn't. But by the time he laid his cards on the table, the Bush administration's mind was already made up. Indeed, it should have been clear that Bush's mind was made up prior to 9/11, which is the best reason why Bush should have never been given this authority in the first place.

And any Senator that didn't know that was being incredibly naive. I respect Senator Edwards for admitting that he was wrong and doing so on national television. I respect Senator Wellstone a lot more for saying in a loud voice when it counted "This is wrong and I know it is wrong and I am voting against this even if it means that I will lose re-election."

Wellstone understood that it was not simply his "vote" that was wrong, but that the very thing that was being voted on was wrong in and of itself. Edwards is simply grandstanding for personal gain, as is his wont.

He voted NAY along with 22 other Senators.

and he made it in the thick of the fire, not after the fact, when the political winds have shifted. Wellstone's vote was courageous, while Edwards' apology for his "vote" is not; it's pure expediency.

I do not now, and have never, bought into the excuse that those who voted Aye on IWR were fooled, bamboozled, tricked, misled, or otherwise duped. They knew EXACTLY what they were voting for. And if they didn't, they were either naive or damn idiots.

that he "is simply grandstanding for personal gain", but if he is, I wish to hell more of our people would grandstand for personal gain, then.

I think Edwards is not only gutsy to do so, but he's clever. Once he admitted openly that he made a mistake when he voted yes, that left the door open for him to move on. If he wants to, he can now make any suggestions he wants about getting our troops out of Iraq ASAP, and no one can say to him, "But John, you voted yes to the war." They can't tell him that because he has cleared his conscience and people know exactly where he stands on it now.

Kerry had the first comprehensive plan that included withdawal - before Murtha did. Feingold (2 months earlier) spoke of a flexible target date constrained by meeting unspecified political benchmarks. Note - no one said that to Kerry that he couldn't have a plan because he voted yes. What Feingold said in November was that he, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin and a Senator I forget were in the forefront on a withdrawal plan.

In fact, I think the reason Kerry spoke of the vote before his plan was the reason you suggested for Edwards.

Edwards has not stated anything beyond the 2004 plan.

you either believe, from where we are now, that MORE WAR is a good thing or at least necessary or you do NOT ...

if you vote to provide continued funding of bush's war, YOU ARE STILL VOTING YES ON THE WAR ...

my support will go to those who vote against MORE WAR and NOT to those who continue to fund it ... all that will be achieved in Iraq, were bush to somehow succeed, would be a puppet government that caters to American oil interests ... win or lose, either result is abhorrent ... it's time to vote for NO MORE WAR ...

to answer the OP question, of course everyone who voted for war and thereby entrusted bush with waging that war, should acknowledge the colossal error they made ... I'm all for forgiveness for their tragic error if they now will fight to stop the madness immediately ...

Bash those who deserve the bashing for it.

and that's to John Edwards for standing up and admitting he was wrong to vote yes.

I didn't "bash" anybody, and I know it was Bush's war.

republicans don't offer similar answers to those questions then only one conclusion can be made. Quit public office, you don't belong there.

I remember Rockefeller and Landrieu saying this like 2 years ago. That being said, they didn't go on national television and do it. That takes some guts.

there should be a few more stepping forward. I know they were fooled into voting for military action but they might as well face it now then later down the road.

The info was out there.

Lincoln Chafee went to the CIA & got a private briefing, as ANY Senator is entitled to, & he voted "NO."

We knew the lead up to the war was based on bogus reasons, but the pols didn't?

Now they come out & they're oh so sorry. Tell that to the dead soldiers families.

They're "yes" vote was politically expedient & they're "mistake apologia" is political expediency.

And, quite frankly, it's sad to see so many excuses being made on their behalf.

It's all politics as usual.

......they should beg the forgiveness of the American people for being gullible enough to fall for such a nazi tactic as that!!

they should forego any plans of attaining further Federal political office. That sort of self-constraint should be a simple point of honor when one has made a "mistake" this grave, though no doubt, it's a point that our nakedly ambitious professional politicians will disregard, given that few of them have any honor to begin with.

Seriously!

:toast:

You and NativeTexan have proven that great minds think alike!

:toast:

. . .do more to redeem this nation.

Every member of 107th Congress who sat on their hands on January 6th, 2001 and every member of the 109th Congress who sat on their hands on January 6th, 2005 betrayed us. This is their gravest and most fateful betrayal. It is from this betrayal that so many others were born. It is this betrayal we must challenge them to come clean on.

If we do not challenge them to admit their failure to carry out their duty on January 6th, 2001 and January 6th, 2005, we can expect them to betray us again on January 6th, 2009 if (when) the fascists corrupt the 2008 Presidential election.

For more on challenging members of Congress to come clean, see Making the Case to Object to Tainted Electors on January 6th. Excerpt below.

=========================================================================================

On January 6th, when the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to judge the legality of those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether or not electors are lawfully appointed.

Justice Breyer provided instructed them on their duty in to Bush v. Gore.

531 U. S. ____ (2000), Breyer, J., dissenting, Bush v. Gore (from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html - emphasis added)

The legislative history of the Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:

“The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal.” H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).

The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:

“The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented.” 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).

Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.

To count “only legal votes” they MUST make a judgment -- a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent.

The intent of our election laws is to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. The principle of consent demands that we have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

To represent “the people in their sovereign capacity” each and every member of congress has a duty to make a judgment that enforces our rights by objecting to the electors from any state that has failed to meet their obligation to conduct a fair election that instills confidence in the results.

I think it is great that he admits to his mistake and I can give him kudos for this, but it isn't enough for me to let him of the hook.

Many have died and many more will die because of this stupid mistake.
I can't see myself supporting anyone who voted for IWR, specially a co-sponsor.

He initially supported IWR because he was about to run in a national election.
Why does he no longer support it?
I can't help but think that he does it for the same reasons.
He is setting himself up nicely for 2008. The war is a total disaster.
I don't trust him or many others!

I'll still take him\them over most republicans any day but he can go back to being a lawyer for all I care.

I don't recall the situation in the House, but I believe that the senators who voted against the resolution sponsored by Lieberman and McCain instead supported the Biden-Lugar resolution. Howard Dean voiced support for the Biden-Lugar resolution at the time. And what's the difference between the two resolutions? Not a heck of a lot, as far as I can tell. I think the Biden-Lugar resolution would have required the president to certify to Congress that he had the necessary authority to go to war before actually committing troops, but the bottom line is that both resolutions effectively ceded to the president the authority to declare war.

n/t