No Senator who voted for the IWR will ever become POTUS

apologies, regrets, excuses aside. True or False? I say true. If so , its very simple to figure out who really has the best chance be the next POTUS. And that itself has implications.

He at least renounced his vote, saying he was misled.

for the biggest strategic American national security disaster ever cuz I 'll do it right next time? :crazy:

Count me out, I like 'em smart in national security.

That would be good. However, if McCain and Hillary both get their party's nomination, then it will prove your prediction wrong(one will be president). However, if neither of them gets teir party's nomination, then I am encouraged.

And your statement MIGHT be true if the IWR took this country to war - it didn't. It would have prevented war if its guidelines had been administered honestly.

Read Bush's signing statement - he knew IWR didn't give him the power the way it was spun in the media as a vote for war. Gonzales admitted the IWR didn't give Bush War Powers and they knew it when they crafted this statement.

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." By passing H.J. Res. 114, the Congress has demonstrated that the United States speaks with one voice on the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. It has also clearly communicated to the international community, to the United Nations Security Council, and, above all, to Iraq's tyrannical regime a powerful and important message: the days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must - and will - end. Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

Throughout the past months, I have had extensive consultations with the Congress, and I look forward to continuing close consultation in the months ahead. In addition, in accordance with section 4 of H.J. Res. 114, I intend to submit written reports to the Congress on matters relevant to this resolution every 60 days. To the extent possible, I intend to consolidate information in these reports with the information concerning Iraq submitted to the Congress pursuant to previous, related resolutions.

The United States is committed to a world in which the people of all nations can live in freedom, peace, and security. Enactment of H.J. Res. 114 is an important step on the road toward such a world.

George W. Bush
The White House,
October 16, 2002.

The GOP doesn't seem a bit concerned about this, why are you?

We do have a number of potential candidates who could fit the bill while to find a Republican candidate who did not vote for IWR or support the war would be harder to find.

but I'm so beyond the IWR and Wafflers for the Dems, I just don't think we should hold our party to a higher standard.

I want a clear end to the war, and someone who can communicate that end to me clearly.

or who supported the war, but it would be nice to have a candidate who had a clear vision of the situation from the beginning. I would prefer to avoid the situation where it appears a candidate had their finger to the wind and changed their support for the war when public opinion changed.

In the 2004 primaries, the usual suspects were still defending their votes.... it took one of them 3 years (and one of them STILL hasn't) to renouce their votes.

Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the U.S.

1. Hillary hasn't said she's running.
2. Hillary hasn't obtained the nomination.
3. Hillary hasn't been elected.

Plus, there's the issue that many, many Democrats will not support her nomination, myself included. So, presuming she's running, she'll likely not get the nomination.

Her position on Iraq is not only wrong, it's way, way wrong.

Only the longest shots would announce they are running for president two years before the election.

Hillary is in the running, but hasn't announced yet, and I think she'll win.

or did not support the war from the beginning, it will seriously uncomplicate matters. None of those candidates will have to explain how they were against the war after they were for it. When I look at the roll call for the vote I notice that the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, voted against it while John Kerry had voted for it. How much more simple would it have been for candidate Kerry in 2004 if he had voted against the IWR like his fellow senator from Massachusetts did? It would be great to avoid that entire issue now, even if most Americans are against the war.

I do believe that any Democratic Senator who voted for the Iraq War will not become POTUS. I and many others in the grassroots knew this war was wrong from Day 1, we knew Iraq was not a threat. We knew you cannot occupy a foreign country and expect them to see us as liberators. We knew this, why didn't our congresscritters know? They knew, but they were afraid of being called weak. Weak is going along with bush and failing to speak truth to power. They failed this country, they failed to protect the Iraq war dead and injured, so no. No to Edwards, no to Hillary (sorry Bartcop) and no to the rest.

Democrats nominated someone who voted for it in 2004...and many argue he actually won...

Hillary, Edwards, and Obama have the best chance now...2 out of those 3 voted for it. I don't think it will have a bearing in an of itself. More important will be their current positions.

much the same thing, but the OP wrote "become" not "be elected" or "win the election" so that line of argument is a non-starter in context of the OP.

As for 2008, it's a long way away, and I won't even hazard a guess as to what will or will not be significant factors by then.

:hi:

That's a risky bet. There's spread on both sides that a senator who voted yes will be president. And, of course, do you think Guiliani and Romney are anything but FOR the war? There are, what, three who didn't log a vote who say they were against the war. One, Clark, isn't even on the radar screen of polls. Another, Gore, still is acting like he won't run. That leaves Obama. You do the math.

Hence Kerry and Edwards are not only forgiven, but have more than redeemed themselves in opposing Bush's march towards dictatorship.

They voted to authorize war crimes. They betrayed America by allowing us to become a criminal nation.

No Senator, republican or democratic, voted to go to war.

It was the idiot's decision.

because it's exceedingly difficult for Senators to win the presidency.

They did so after reading the title of this thread!

Obama is staying in it, though.