I'm tired of hearing about the IWR vote.

Today, we had Russ Feingold once again pontificating over the fact that he voted against the Iraq War. Kucinich has practically made a career doing it. We've seen hand wringing and praising over this issue day in and day out here on DU. Quite frankly, I'm totally sick of it.

Here's a few facts that I think we can all agree with:

• We are currently in a quagmire Iraq.


• Bush plans on keeping us there until at least 2009, when he leaves office.


• We need to get out much, much sooner than that.


• With or without support from Democrats as a whole, IWR was going through.


• With or without IWR, Bush was going to invade Iraq.

With these items in mind, why are we STILL insisting on dwelling over a vote that had very little actual impact upon the course of events that occurred nearly FOUR YEARS AGO?

Isn't it more important to figure out where we're going from here and how we can move America past this tragedy? Don't we have a responsibility to the men and women that are actually in harm's way to move the discourse of our national debate past a non-binding decision that was made four years ago and towards solving this horror?

Regardless of what happened and who voted for what, we are where we are. Period. And where we are is a nightmare. The IWR vote happened and there's no getting it back. It is utterly puerile for us to take pot-shots at our own people, people that actually are trying to help solve the current problem, over one mistake that was made four years ago. It is utterly absurd that while we sit here and accuse Bush of never accepting blame or fault, that we absolutely lynch our own leaders when they do so. Finally, and most importantly, why in the world would we seek to neuter the exact people whom are trying to act on our behalf?

It's time to put the specter of IWR in our rear view mirror once and for all. Our message to our leaders should be simple - whatever the case was before, we want you to lay your cards on the table NOW. Even if you didn't once before, act on our behalf NOW. The future of our country, the lives of our troops, and our very moral decency demands that we work together, not against each other, to end this war.

A huge mistake. And those who don't have the courage to admit mistakes end up being seen as weak and unelectable or -- in the case of most 'Licans -- denying reality.

If Kerry had repudiated his IWR vote in 2004, he might have won enough additional votes to overcome the Bush machine's election theft. We want our leaders not to be just not-republicans (although that's a good start), but to stand for something. Hillary has looked increasingly weak -- and now faces scorn among the reality-based, left-of-center community, because of her weasling about IWR.

The only way to get past the issue is to formally repudiate it.

And that's why the issue is still around.

That's some fucked up logic you've got there. A couple of words about a meaningless vote that was made four years ago is apparently more important to you than actual actions that are taken today to fix the problem. How do you reconcile THAT?

Is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. Clearly the plan is is hand the new president in 2009 (Dem or 'Lican) a steaming pile of blood-soaked manure, plus the tax-cut time bomb designed to blow the head off anyone with the guts to touch the cuts.

I'm saying that addressing the IWR is important to Dem politicians, because repudiation is a way to regain honor, credibility, and electability. Trying to finesse it will lead to more.lost.elections.

IMO.

Let's add this up, shall we?

1) We can't get the problem fixed with Republicans in office.
2) The IWR vote shames Democrats.
3) Therefore we should remind everyone and their brother about that shame right before the 2006 elections instead of reminding them that we are the only ones who can fix the problem.

Can I ask you how that makes any sense at all? Shouldn't we, as a party, be touting the good things we have and will do in office instead of highlighting the bad? Call me a novice (which I'm not), but your plan just doesn't seem like a good political strategy to me.

Kerry did it yesterday; Clinton has yet to do it. Note how the crowd responded to the two of them.

Strategically, those voters who have shifted from a pro-war to an anti-war postion (about 30% of the country) are going to identify more closely with politicians who admit they've taken the same journey themselves.

Not to mention, that getting past IWR lets you whack those who haven't (as in Republicans) all the harder.

It seems a pretty straigtforward, strategic thing to do for any candidate who's facing the electorate in 2006 OR 2008.

But why the fuck are we Democrats taking pot shots at our own people over this? Where does that get us?

The credibility thing probably won't go away. If nothing else, 'Lican opponents will continue throwing the IWR vote in the face of any Dem who decries the war. My point is -- as a part of a 'moving toward a solution' strategy -- candidates should defuse the issue by acknowledging the mistake. That gives them the license to rip Bush-enablers a new one on the subject.

And I think Iraq is going to be The Issue in 2006, and you can bet that the admin will jigger the electorate's nerves any way they can (troop withdrawals starting in October, anyone?)

Now, if Dem politicians happen to still think IWR was NOT a mistake (like Clinton seems to be trying to say), then I think progressives need to know that about such prospective candidates.

If they're going to talk about IWR, fine, let them. Why do WE have to? Why can't we be talking about how we're going to fix the problem? Isn't that really what America wants right now? Solutions instead of partisan bickering?

What's the solution -- remembering that you don't only need a plan, you need power, i.e., to have won elections to implement any solution.

Doesn't necessarily have to be immediately and we can have competing plans for disengagement, but we should all have it front and center on our agenda. That's how you win the 2006 elections.

Disengagement and handoff to the Iraqis so they can work out their post-Saddam destiny by themselves.

We need to be aware of the dangers, of course, because I think most of us expect the place to descend into a bloody civil war -- with Turkish and Iranian involvement -- shortly after we extract ourselves. We need to make the point that it really is the Iraqis' right to work these things out and we do no good by offering mad bombers a richer target environment.

As long as we're all on board with disengaging in some capacity, I'm fine with that. That's heading in the right direction and that's what the American people want to hear. They don't want to hear that we're going to be there until 2010 and we have to offer them something better than that.

Again, this is the kind of debate that doesn't occur when you're too busy pissing on each other over something that happened 4 years ago.

and has many many times. I assume the bigger difference is that Kerry since Oct 25 (and even more since April 2006) has been for a fairly quick withdrawal of troops - that's more real and important. I think the LW accepting the RW equation of the vote being for war.

basic law of self correction

The problem in this case is not that we are in Iraq, rather that the Democrats voted for it and/or did not do enough to stop it.

I think so.

What good does that do?

like I said, he has done what I would require

1. admit the mistake
2. fix the problem

Not in political ones though.

Just because MrModerate is pointing out that many Americans would like an apology or at least an acknowledgment from politicians that the IWR vote was a mistake doesn't mean he thinks that can take the place of fixing the Iraq quagmire. After reading his post, I fail to see how you took it as meaning that the IWR vote is more important to him than actual actions taken today to fix the problem. I also fail to see how responding to someone by saying "that's some fucked up logic" encourages any form of debate, but okaaaay.

As for my opinion, I don't subscribe to the belief that the IWR was a meaningless vote. If Congress is going to give the President a green light to go to war, they should take the responsibility of ensuring that the President has made an adequate case for going to war. If they are allowing the President to START a war, then Congress should demand proof that starting the war is the very last option (something that Bush could not do). At the time, Congress passed the IWR resolution for a few cheap short term political points while ignoring the horrifying long term circumstances. Why in the world is it too much to ask for an apology on this vote?

That's just my take on things.

I wasn't. I made my comments and I'm not looking to debate the issue. It's pretty damn cut and dried to me.

And you're wrong on one huge point of information - Congress didn't allow the President to do a single thing. Bush had the power all along. That's quite a huge point of interest, don't you think?

Wouldn't it be less stressful to just talk to yourself?

Anyway, back to the debate, er, topic at hand...

Checks and balances:

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

....

The IWR was a resolution which gave Bush the authority to start a needless war with Iraq. If Bush supposedly didn't need authorization from Congress, then why did Congress give it to him? The choices are dismal, aren't they? Either Congress authorized the POTUS because it was the only way for Bush to spend our money on his war or because, like I said before, it was to score cheap short term political points. Either way, people died. Either way it was a stupid decision. Either way, an apology isn't out of line.

If I can't judge the politicians by the way they vote, then what's the point?

Nice try though.

with their lives, nor to the 100,000+ Iraqis who have paid with theirs. The fact is that the people who gave us this monstrosity (including Dems like Lieberman and Hillary) have not had to pay A THING for their crime against humanity.

Come down off the high horse for a second and join us, please.

think that vote was meaningless....

Do you have any clue how the government operates? Even the faintest idea as to what the powers of the Presidency are? Apparently not.

serves in Iraq... The government no longer operates the same way. It operates the way the Bush regime tells it to operate.... That is what the fuck is up with me>...

Us hammering our own party over something that happened four years ago PREVENTS US FROM DOING WHAT IT TAKES TO GET YOUR SON OUT OF THIS HORROR CALLED A WAR!

Tell me exactly what good you think it does when people like Kerry or Murtha submit bills calling for the removal of our troops while you're busy reminding everyone that they supported this war in the first place? I'll tell you what it does - it makes them look like hypocrites and it undermines the message that we need to get the fuck out. Please, tell me what good this does to focus on the past instead of focusing on actually getting the troops out and getting your son home safely?

and maybe this time in Iran? Live and Learn by your mistakes... Getting them out of Iraq is great, I applaud anyone who comes forward and admits it has been a mistake.. There are plenty more who have not... Those who do not learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them... Have you even thought of that? That it could happen again?

BTW--I am not blind, please don't yell at me in red letters.. I understand your point and like I said applaud all who are making the move to end the war...

History CAN repeat itself, but only if you allow the underlying conditions to remain the same. If that Iraq vote occurred for the first time today with Bush's approval ratings where they are, don't you think the vote would turn out MUCH differently than it did then? I don't think there's any question it would - and in fact, I doubt, you can see evidence of that with regard to how we're currently handling Iran.

If Al Gore was President, this wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. If we put Democrats into a majority position, it's extremely unlikely that history will repeat itself. So again, why are we taking actions that directly hinder our ability to divert history from repeating itself? What sense does this make?

thing to do... The pressure put on these politicians that if they did not vote for the IWR, they were unpatriotic. That is why most of them voted I think, they caved in to the political pressure.. That is the problem, not the vote itself, but the fact that they allowed themselves to be manipulated by that kind of rhetoric.... Same with the Patriot Act....

We must remember this, and vow for it not to happen again, if not, we have learned nothing from our mistakes...


Don't fault these guys who did not vote for the IWR, they did not bow to the political might...

There is exactly one person whom I give a lot of credit to for voting against the bill - Senator Wellstone. He was up for re-election and was very unsafe and yet he voted against it anyway. THAT is courage. THAT is not bowing to political might. There might be a few others like him, but I am unaware of them.

Feingold was a multiple-term incumbent not up for re-election in 2002. Kucinich is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the United States. How can you call it "standing up to political might" when there are literally no repercussions for doing so?

You want to know something - I bet you that if Russ Feingold were up in 2002, he'd have voted for IWR.

and yet here you are trying to dissect why Feingold voted for it correctly? Feingold does not do the norm.. He does not play the party line either.. He votes his conscience... Funny that you would criticize his actions when HE DID THE RIGHT THING.

Who cares why he did it, it only matters that he did do it. Wellstone was great too, and the other Democrats that voted against it... Funny you castigate the politicians who did the right thing.


Damn, that's a weak argument there...:wtf:

You call actions courageous, yet you take absolutely no time examining exactly why they are courageous! This is why I needed to use large red letters - because you are apprarently blind to anything that falls outside of the way you want to see things.

insult the other person... Or like below make some abstract comment with vague reference... I won't do that to you. This forum is not personal, the war is personal for me.. I reserve anger and judgment for it and those that helped it to it's inception and I will praise those who help it to it's conclusion.

However, if we do not learn by our mistakes, we are bound to repeat them. That is a statement we should be looking at.. Will this happen again????

Then we'll debate. Until then, this is over.

Kerry repudiated the WAR before the WAR ever started. Would anybody give a shit about the IWR if Bush hadn't gone to WAR? Well HELL NO. The WAR is what matters. That is the problem Hillary has, she won't repudiate the WAR.

As I've said all along, I've got no problem with that. But taking pot shots at our entire party for something that happened four years ago does nothing but prevent us from being able to get us out of the goddamn war. That is the point.

It was very clear to anyone that Kerry was the candidate to vote for if you were against the war. The RW, with LW help, tried to confuse this. Kerry would not have gone to war if he were President. The fact, which can be seen in the DSM, is that Bush intended to go to war no matter what resolution passed and even if no resolution passed. (He could do this - they spoke of an "Iraqi" attack on our planes in the no fly zone - Bush as CIC would and could declare war.)

As Kerry repudiated it back in Oct, why is it still a question.

Who are just beavering away to cover their asses for their collaborationist votes and still, still, in favor of keeping the troops there?

The defense appropriations bill ($427bn) and the Iraq/Hurricane Bill are going to the senate after passing in the House by a wide margin. Let's see how our brave senators vote, instead of talk, on defunding the war they're supposedly against.

I've got no problem with that. Hold them in the fire.

But e-fucking-nough about IWR. Talking about a vote that did essentially nothing four years ago gets us nowhere today.

By watching them vote for more money for the war and then forgiving them, and voting for them, as you want us to do when they voted for it?

Please, point that out for me, because quite frankly, I never said it. I am talking about IWR and IWR only.

Vote for Hillary? If you aren't going to answer his question, then what was the point in responding to him?

I see that nowhere. Furthermore, my answers are pretty damn clear - do whatever you want, just let IWR die once and for all. Dwelling on the past is getting us nowhere fast. That's my point. Am I being unclear here?

"How do we 'hold their feet to the fire'?"

I am talking about using IWR to slander ourselves and that alone. Vote for whomever you want, demand whatever course of action you want, but taking pot shots at each other over something that happened four years ago is ridiculous. How am I being unclear here?

Because last time I checked, DUers don't vote lock-step with each other. If you don't want to make a suggestion to all of DU on what to do, then come out and state it clear as day, but don't hide behind that statement and expect people to buy it.

I'm just fucking sick of this IWR holier than thou circular firing squad bullshit that has been going on here for the last four years. It's absolutely ridiculous.

And no, I'm NOT going to tell anyone whom to vote for, just that they should be voting for a Democrat. Nothing more, nothing less.

You aren't making a damn bit of sense to me at all. :hi:

constituted the "blank check" that enabled BFEE to have their monstrous CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

Absolutely, positively NOTHING. It was a show of support and nothing else. Legally speaking, the bill did NOTHING! It was a political move, not a legal one.

enough already. present time reality and problem solving

:toast:

Exactly. Of course it's more fun to brand "WARMONGER" or "SPINELESS DINO" on the forehead of those that voted for it :sarcasm: when this is really BUSH'S WAR.

We haven't declared an actual war since WWII. Bush didn't need Congress to do what he did. That was little more than symbolic.

Actually, if you want to cut to the heart of the issue, the vote helped Republicans win in 2002, because if you remember as well (and so few of us here do nowadays), Bush had an extremely high approval rating back there. With Dems voting against IWR, that just showed the country that they needed more Republicans in office to support their then-highly popular president. So if you really want to talk about whose votes did more to stop the war and the Republicans, that's a discussion I'd love to have. Hindsight is 20/20.

If so many hadn't given Schimpanski the political cover afforded by the IWR? It's been a bulletproof blanket for the chimpster up 'til now -- better armor than we're giving our troops in Iraq.

We'd have gotten slaughtered even worse in 2002.

And I worked for a Member that voted against IWR. We were in a safe district. Most of our colleagues weren't. That's how I figure.

We let the 'Licans run away with the national security issue and turn "Iraq War" and "Oppostion to Terrorism" into synonyms.

We.shouldn't.have.done.that.

Any President in office would've easily had the approval ratings Bush did post-9/11. Add to that the conservative media bias, and they pretty much had free will to do and say whatever they want, and they chose to depict us as wear on national security. It's shameful that they chose political security over actually healing our nation, but that's what they chose to do and it worked.

But I think we'd have more credibility, have shown spine and standing for our beliefs and have a more secure stance going into this election coming up in November.

There's no way we'd be able to make up for the kind of deficit we'd be staring down. Plus we'd have almost no leaders with credible positions to speak up on anything. You think the media drowns us out now? It'd be nothing compared to how it would be if we were truly THAT marginalized. Credibility and a spine would MAYBE bring us back to the seat deficit that we're currently staring down, but we would have absolutely no shot at taking over the House and Senate, which we currently do.

When I say we wouldn't have done as well in the last election, I didn't mean that we'd get creamed. If you want to use Russ as an example, he voted against the IWR and he got re-elected by a wider margin than the last, and a considerably wider margin than Kerry in Wisconsin.

I think we'd have gotten slaughtered in 2002, which would've set the table for 2004 much differently. In fact, I think we'd have made some gains in 2004 - I don't disagree with that. But making modest gains loses a lot of meaning when you're doing it from about 100 seats back, which is where we'd probably be if we voted against IWR as a party.

And if Russ was to be re-elected in 2002, he'd have lost. Plain and simple. In fact, I highly doubt he'd have voted against it in the first place if he were up for re-election in 2002. For all people make him out to be a hero, he's not shown himself above being politically expedient when the need is there.

for what that's worth... I agree that the vote shouldn't be held over people's heads, but I can see why those who had the good sense to vote against the war should be proud of their foresight.

This is, was and will always be BUSH'S WAR period.

He lied and his still lying. The problem is we are letting him off the hook instead of holding him accountable. That's what those who voted for and against are trying to do.

Those are two vastly different things, no?

(I assume that's what you mean by pot-shots?) so I think that answers your question.

I apologize if I came off as glib in that last remark.

Those that stood up for diplomacy and against popular war are courageous. We are now responsible for Iraq until we are willing to admit defeat or there is a stable, pro west democracy in Baghdad.

Saddam was in power for a reason. If we leave without a stable, pro west democracy in place, I think that would be fucked up.

Furthermore, the VAST majority of Dems voting against IWR had little or nothing to lose politically, either having just recently been elected in the Senate and not having to face re-election for 4 more years or were in districts so safe that there was no chance they'd lose their seats. Is it really courage when nothing is actually on the line?

cutting and running...is defeat.

I'm all for getting out. It was a mistake. Time to cut and run. Or stay until there is a pro-west, stable democracy in Iraq:eyes:

In other words, if you're just following the will of your actual constituency, how is it in any way difficult to stand against the war if there are absolutely no reprecussions to doing so?

they stood for the war, and against their constituency... they could have had courage.

And courage is why it's still important.

Dems were scared to vote against the IWR. They were convinced that if they opposed the post-9/11 Bush they'd be branded traitors. They voted for a resolution that they KNEW was a bad idea, hoping it wouldn't be that bad.

That lack of courage has cost us dearly. Voters have gone to Bush -- even when they disagreed with him -- because they were uneasy entrusting the country to a party made up of uncourageous old-line pols.

Leadership is more than just ideas. It's also strength, and the voters know that. In this case they embraced the devil, because they were afraid to embrace weaklings. And the country, the world, and the Dem party have been paying for it ever since.

My point is simple: to win in 2006 we'll have to show backbone, or we'll be swamped by phony 'Lican "courage."

Perhaps voters claim they don't like it, but the voters would have essentially eliminated our presence in the government if Dems as a whole voted against IWR. We'd have been staring down a 100+ seat deficit in the House. It's nice and all to claim voters want courage, but they only want it when it suits them.

Millions of Americans agreed that a war in Iraq was a fool's errand that distracted from the real problem of international terrorism. We let the administration sell it as a necessity when we KNEW that wasn't so.

Unfortunately, popular votes don't mean much on a national scale when it comes to gerrymandered districts. Most of those millions occurred within the boundaries of overwhelmingly safe Democratic districts.

We're going to have to stand up to the warmongers this time, or not only will there be no gain in the House or Senate, but we'll lose seats.

Admittedly, the climate has changed (apologies to Al Gore), but strong anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-'Lican stands are going to be essential, somehow married to a positive message along the lines of "not only won't we fuck up like these creeps, but we have a lot of good ideas you might not have heard about."

In fact the large protest rallies were in January and February 2003. My kids, husband and I went to a January protest in DC and a NYC one on President's weekend. Even then the percent of people against the war was less than 50% - much less. (I know there was a rally in DC in Sept/Oct 2002) but it was much smaller than the January one.

Yeah, voting for the IWR and acting tough in the War on Terror has served our party so well. :eyes:



on edit- You people who want to sweep away this vote keep arguing that bad things would have happened to our party if we hadn't gone along with the BS. NEWSFLASH! Bad things HAVE happened to the party even though we've gone along with the BS. I very seriously doubt that 2002 would have been any different if the Dems had voted by party to oppose the IWR. Cleland and Carnahan still would have lost, Kerry and Harkin still would have won. :shrug:

You fail to understand how much worse it would have been. There would be no Dem party right now to argue about - that's how bad it could have been.

Are you seriously trying to argue that had Kerry voted against the IWR, Mass. would have gone repub? Seriously?

The states that flipped in 2002 are red states that we lost in spite of playing by the republicans' rules. We KNOW that strategy doesn't work, so why don't we try another one? Instead, we get the same old, go along to get along message from the Beltway. And you say *I'm* the one who lacks imagination?

I was working for a Mass. Congressman at the time. Even a couple of our seats were in jeopardy if we didn't go along with IWR (though my boss was not one of them).

Personally, I'd have abandoned a southern strategy a long friggin time ago. The south has NEVER been willing to go along with the north, even before the Revolutionary War. We need to focus on the midwest and west. But if you haven't noticed, there are a lot more red states than blue ones, so we have to do something to appeal to those folks, do we not? Perhaps it's just my fuzzy inside the Beltway math talking here, but we can't take the Senate without some red states.

There might have been some Dem House seats in blue states which weren't as secure as the Senators' seats. There was no excuse for people like Kerry, Lieberman, Harkin, or Biden to support the IWR and give the public the *perception* that this is a bipartisan war. None.

And the only supposed justification for people like Carnahan and Cleland was that it was the only way they could win re-election. It was likely that we'd lose those seats and we of course did. So maybe we just should have done the right thing and damn the consequences as regards those seats?

I'm not saying that someone like me could win the Senate in Texas. Hell, I might not be able to win in Vermont, even. But there really are some rare votes that are more important than the next election, and if a vote concerning sending kids to war isn't one of them, then I don't know what is.

Either it was a meaningless vote OR it was of such importance that it would have gotten us slaughtered in 2002.

It was meaningless as far as actions are concerned. This war did not create the Iraq War, nor would turning the bill down have prevented it from occurring.

However, it was very important politically, which is exactly why so many Democrats wound up voting for it.

I have been VERY clear and you purposefully pretending to be ignorant. It is not appreciated.

...in that too many Dems who voted for the IWR appear to still believe a) the war was righteous and/or b) setting a timetable is not a good idea. Those are the Dems I personally have a problem with now.

The IWR vote does not need to be part of today's discourse. Rail against those Democrats all you want - but bringing up a discussion that should've died four years ago doesn't exactly help us move forward.

The Dems who voted for the IWR have had plenty of time to realize their error. Why don't they say anything? Why instead do they insist on going along with the status quo, as if the war was right and they would do the same again? I can't speak for anyone else but it makes me wonder if they believe going to war with Iraq was the correct action. And if they do believe that -- and nothing they've said leads me to think otherwise -- then there is no moving forward.

Did you not read the end of the OP? Did you not understand the point of it?

I have no problem with hammering members of our party if they're not currently on board with getting us out of Iraq. I have a problem with hammering members of our party over something that happened four years ago. What context do you need in that?

Or you didn't understand it.

Peace, Vash.

The "War Powers Act" and the IWR are, imho, egregious violations of that Constitutional duty. Every vote in favor of funding this illegal invasion and occupation is a furtherance of a war crime. There is absolutely no rationalization that overcomes this complicity, imho.

I see nothing more fundamental than the question of constitutional duties and both Kucinich and Feingold are 100% correct in highlighting this as the most basic issue. I quite frankly don't give a flying fuck how 'tired' it makes people or how inconvenient it is for their own political preferences.

The President can't officially declare war, but he can take military action for 100 Days before he has to report to Congress about it. And there is nothing that dictates what constitutes an actual report.

You did hit a major point - funding is the issue. And that's my point - why are we hung up over a meaningless vote that occurred 4 years ago when there are ones that actually hold some sway over the course of events that are occurring TODAY that we should be talking about?

(I don't appreciate use of the imperative - it's uncivil, imo.)

After you reread YOUR Constitution, try rereading what I posted. The "100 day" time frame is a creature of the 'War Powers Act,' not the Constitution! I personally regard the WPA as unconstitutional, in direct contradiction to the Constitution's assignation of the power to declare war to Congress. Congress' unlawful abdication of its constitutional duty is unacceptable! At the same time, it does NOT exonerate a President who usurps that authority. It is mere complicity in an unconstitutional act.

There's not a fucking thing that's "meaningless" about the IWR - it amounted to a constitutional crisis and the failure to oppose it was complicity in both a war crime and an abdication of the duty of Congress.

Perhaps because we still have tens of thousands of people dying in Iraq as a direct result of that vote. Or because we're still going deeper in debt as we throw money down that rathole of a war. Or perhaps it is because those who voted for the IWR proved who their real consituents are, and a big hint, it isn't we the people. Or possibly because if we had had a resounding NO vote on the IWR, not only could the Dems have used the bully pulpit to beat the 'Pugs about the head and shoulders with this huuuge mistake, but also we probably would have had a resounding victory in '04.

In addition, many of these self same people have yet to reputiate the war or their part in it, even though it is manifestly clear that the war is a huge mistake. In addition, if we don't hold these people responsible for their actions all we can expect is more of the same ol' same ol'.

And frankly friend, most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can criticize those who voted for the IWR and work towards ending this illegal, immoral war.

-Wrong on the first point. IWR meant nothing and Bush did NOT need it to go to war.

-Right on the second part, but wrong because you connect it to the first part.

-Completely, totally, and overwhelmingly wrong on the third part. We forget that in most instances, people wanted IWR. It was not a wise thing to vote against unless you were in a safe Democratic district, which thanks to gerrymandering, there aren't all that many.

-You fail to play the "what if" game for part four. Hindsight is 20/20. What if that vote turned into an even more catastrophic defeat in 2002? Where would that leave us for 2004? What if WMDs were actually found in Iraq? It's easy to play that game now, but it wasn't so easy to play in 2002. It's a lot easier to play that game today, but you forget that it wasn't nearly that easy back then.

-Hammer them for not repudiating the war now. Where does focusing on the past get us?

-And frankly, friend, we can't talk about how great we are and how we'd help fix the quagmire that is Iraq while reminding people that many people in our party carry the shame of it. That's called talking out of both sides of one's mouth. WE need to be talking about the future, not the past. Leave the criticism about the past for the other guys.

Let me ask you this, if Bush didn't need the IWR, why did he put it out there for a vote? Because he wanted to have the gravitas and authority that having the Congress say Aye on the IWR in order to look legit going into the war. Sure, he could have gone to war without the IWR, but it would have left him extremely vunerable politically if he had. If would have pissed off the public, the Congress(for abridging their powers) and the world if he had acted with such arrogance.

As far as the debt goes, yes, without the war, we would be much less in debt. Without the IWR passing and giving a pass to Bush, we probably wouldn't have gone to war. The disconnect is yours friend.

And you are completely wrong on your assertion that most people wanted the IWR. At the time of the vote there were millions upon millions of people, both in the US and abroad, urging, begging and pleading with Congress to vote NO on it. Messages, emails, phone calls and letters were running 268-1 against the IWR. In poll after poll at the time it was shown that the American people didn't want war, instead they wanted the inspectors to finish their job over in Iraq before any vote on anything was taken.

As far as part four goes, well, flip flop, remember that? Remember how that dogged Kerry throughout the campaign. As far as finding WMDs in Iraq, most sane rational intelligent people realized early on that there weren't going to be any WMDs. After all, they hadn't been found in '98, there had been no evidence of them since, and it was highly unlikely that any would be found now. As far as '02 goes, well frankly I find it insulting and monsterous that our so called leaders would consign tens of thousands of people to death and misery all so as they could further their political career. What ever happened to doing the right thing, no matter what the costs? Hell, whatever happened to doing your damn job, that being a voice for your constituents, who as I said earlier, were clearly against the IWR.

And the reason that we focus on the past, AND criticize them for their current actions, is because goddamn it, people died because of their actions and they need to be held responsible for their mistakes. We're not talking out of both sides of our mouth, I think that our message is loud and clear for those who choose to hear. If you voted for the IWR, well that is a huge strike against you. If you voted for the IWR, fail to repudiate that vote, and continue to support this war instead of looking for a way out, then yes, we will hold you responsible for your actions, current and past, and will do our damnest to kick your happy ass out of office during the primaries. That is, after all, what the primary system was designed to do, hold politicians in one's party responsible for their actions while in office.

I'm sorry that you are tired of hearing this, but many, many people find the actions taken by people like Hillary and Lieberman relevant now. Thus we discuss it. If you don't like those threads, well hey, there's always the options you have of either not clicking on those threads, or simply using the "Hide Thread" function.

Bush put it there to win votes in 2002, and it worked. He made it "you're with us or against us". Democrats voting against IWR, according to Bush (whom had an enormously high approval rating then), were against him, which is exactly why, he claimed, Americans needed to vote more Republicans into office. And they did. And if more Democrats had voted against IWR, we'd be currently staring down a 100+ seat deficit in the House.

But frankly, if he hadn't done so, if he had unilaterally declared war, he and the Republicans would have suffered immensely both in '02 and especially '04.

And how sad is it that so many Democrats put their own political careers ahead of the death and destruction we caused in Iraq, in addition to failing to represent their constituents, which is after all, job one for those who are in Congress. There are times when one's career doesn't matter, when the lives of innocents are on the line, and the IWR was one of them. Those who voted for it have blood of innocents on their hands, all because they chose to look out for their precious political career instead. Disgusting if you ask me.

The party damn well can't just commit suicide. It does what it has to do to live on to fight another day. What you're talking about is suicide on a party level. What you're talking about is risking being the minority party for several decades. It's a lot more than just keeping one's job.

Being an ongoing rubber stamp for the Bush administration? Oooo, what a tragedy that would be if said agenda was derailed:eyes:

Look friend, Democrats are supposed to be the O-P-P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N P-A-R-T-Y. You know, stand up and do what's right for the country, no matter what. But instead, they are simply looking out for both their own careers, and the best interests of their corporate masters. And we the people are drastically losing out.

Now then, let's ask this hypothetical. Say back in '02 the Dems had all voted against the IWR. Perhaps they might have had a loss in '02. But don't you think, with the dissatisfaction over the war clearly in our favor in '04, the Dems could have easily come roaring back. Without the hypocrisy and calls of "flip flop" etc., the Dems could have absolutely hammered the 'Pugs with the war, and not only would they Dems be in charge, with Kerry in the WH, but chances are we would be well on our way out of Iraq.

Besides, whatever happened to doing one's job? It was clear in '02 that the country didn't want to go into Iraq. They wanted a wait and see approach, with nothing being done until the inspectors finished their job. Yet instead of following their constituents' wishes, the Dems put their own wants first, and voted for the IWR. If you were an employer would you reward an employee who did that? Of course not, so why should we reward the Dems?

Sorry, but this has stopped being fruitful.

Perhaps there is a lesson in here for you:shrug:

And are unwilling to see how things actually happen in the real world. And that's why our discussion ends here.

Admitting that you have a problem. Now we can start to make progress with you:evilgrin:

:hi:

Remember the vote was in Oct 2002. Between then and March 2003, the inspectors were in Iraq, had access even to the Presidential palaces and they were destroying missles. By any sane definition, this was working. Add diplomacy and we could have ended up in a better place than we were in Sept 2002 - where the Iraqi sanctions were doing damage and there was call for ending them.

The problem is the yes/no nature of voting. This bill was a trap. In fact, in 2004 if Kerry would have voted against it, he would have been painted as unwilling to confront a threat, a pacifist dove and a coward. The problem is that the Democrats should have voted for the Levin (I think) amendment that required Bush to return to Congress - when Lieberman (in the rose garden with Bush) said he would vote for the bill without it, the chances for it failed. It then came down to trusting Bush would do what he said.

how long till bush follows suit?

It is time to admit defeat and pull out of Iraq. Or keep fighting.

But we shouldn't be hammering our own over IWR. Talk about funding, talk about an exit strategy, talk about anything you want as it pertains to moving us forward. But why remind people about IWR for little more than the self-aggrandizement of the people who were against it in the first place?

I mean, that vote was all of 4 years ago, ancient history in modern Merika. It isn't like that one silly little vote is impacting our lives in any way whatsoever today, so why don't we just let sleeping dogs lie and get over it? :eyes:


I'm sure the families of the 2500 killed soldiers and thousands of Iraqis who've been killed as a consequence of those cowardly actions agree that the vote was irrelevant, too.

But if you can explain to me how lynching our own members over a vote that happened four years ago does anything to help solve the problem we're in today, by all means be my guest. Frankly though, I'm guessing you'd rather pontificate and continue to be holier than thou than actually getting something done. You'd probably rather be correct than do the right thing.

at members of Congress who abdicated their War Powers responsibility. But that is a discussion for another thread.

While I don't think that any one member should be singled out for their vote, I do believe that reminding the weaker Dems of past follies is important. They fell for the Bush Administration Created, Media Driven War on Terra, we have to be strong on defense or else we'll lose BS in the past. They should be continually reminded of the enormity of that mistake because apparently THEY STILL DON'T GET IT. A majority of Americans favor speedy troop withdrawal from Iraq, while a majority of Dem politicians still espouse the same old stay the course rhetoric.

Because they still haven't learned from their past mistakes, they apparently still need to be reminded of them so that they don't make new and similar mistakes.

Do you not realize we haven't legally had a war since WWII?

When did it pass? :eyes:

Try doing some research. Something about a President having the authority to take military action as Commander-in-Chief without having to tell a soul about it, and then all he has to do is file a report to Congress, with it stating nowhere in the Constitution as to what exactly constitutes a report, meaning all he has to do is literally send a note scribbled on a napkin that says "I've sent troops to Iraq." The arbitrary War Powers Act is exactly that - arbitrary. While a President cannot officially declare war, he can wage what amounts to a war without any kind of approval. No constitutional amendments required - it's all right there.

to what we should do now. There's plenty to talk about and there are big differences between those who want to continue the occupation (Hillary, Dean) and those who don't.

That's all I'm asking - focus on the here and now. Do whatever you want to our leaders that aren't on board today. But to tar and feather Democrats for one vote that occurred four years ago (that didn't actually have any legal power in the first place) is just absurd.

It does say something about a persons judgement and courage. I trust someone more to be President if they made the right decision about Iraq. I think that you can give it a reast after a while though.

equal. Single issue voting is irresponsible and foolish.

was a moral and political failure of leadership. The Dems that did it for whatever reason are responsible and I applaud those that now acknowledge the heinousness of that vote. That singular vote led to the Death and Destruction of American and Iraqi lives needlessly and heedlessly. Those who did vote aye had an obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution and when it became apparent that bush had lied it was a moral failure to not speak out on the lawlessness. That single vote has led to primary challenges and new voices. If Hillary and Lieberman, et al want to stay the course, fine, but they shouldn't come any where near me seeking time, money or a vote.

I may or may not be able to post from there. Please don't take that as me fleeing from my own thread. I'll reply in the morning if need be.

stand on the issue.

Did they admit a mistake and are they now actively working to fix it in whatever way they see fit? Fine, that's great. I have nothing but admiration and support for that position.

Or does he/she offer convoluted rationalizations and continue their enabling of Bush's bad behavior? Nope, sorry, can't accept that! To make it all big mean Daddy's fault is childish. Everyone knew dmn well what that vote meant- it was widely discussed at the time.

are the same Dems who today think we need to saty the course in Iraq. I'll forgive people like Murtha on this, as he is working towards troop withdrawal now. But Clinton, Lieberman et al? Nope.

they are neither genuine nor logical. I have ZERO respect for your style & the way you "confont" those who disagree with you. I would tell you what I think of your water-carrying for Democratic-war-mongers (H.Clinton, et al), but my post would likely be deleted because there are too many D-sheep like yourself. I'm so glad I have my OWN mind...enjoy your Kool-Aid!!!

and well reasoned arguments that I have ever read on the subject of the IWR. The emphasis on dealing with the future is important. I think almost everyone on this thread would likely agree that the 2 most important things to do now are:

- Win more seats in 2006

and

- Get out of Iraq

Neither of these require bashing Democrats, especially ones up for office, on the IWR. It also helps the Republicans to say that it was a vote for war - it was more complex than that.

should certainly point that out. Those who did not should have a good explanation for thier vote.

I'd rather hear a solution for the problem from a consistently anti-war Dem than from one who helped to get us all into this mess.

No one will ever convince me that the IRW yes voters did not know exactly what they were buying and what they were paying for it. Not when millions of us around the world figured it out without their access to information.

They were willing to see people die to gain potential political advantage.

Nothing else could be so revealing of their fundamental values.

They sold their birthright for a mess of porridge, and now they can lick the cold, dry bowl. I hope they hear about it till their dying day. The dead can't hear or speak - the least we living can do is be their voices, in every way we can.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

One way-- everyone cowed and marching lockstep and ceding far more power to exec branch than is necessary or wise.

The other way-- with dissent and laying the groundwork for a strong movement which may have ... eventually... taken the planet into a new way of working together as we enter an almost certain period of global environmental and economic crisis. I don't know how old you are but often battles are fought and won not immediately but over a period of many years... or even generations.

What an oddly passive and fatalistic opinion you express!

Why fight discrimination against women and minorities because its going to happen anyway. Why work for workers rights because workers are going to get screwed anyway. Why speak up against election fraud because it's going to happen anyway.

And finally, democracy works best when there is a healthy opposition party. Single party government is generally not a good idea. To the extent that the democrats abdicated their responsibility to perform their function as opposition party, they are indeed PARTIALLY responsible for this war. In fact, don't you remember the discussions amongst dem leadership which were widely reported at the time-- basically it was something like, "we don't have to do anything but give Bush the rope to hang himself."

Um, no, I can't go along with that strategy. It is as morally bankrupt as anything I've heard.

A war has a definite start date and they all end eventually. Everything you mentioned were historically institutionalized practices that dated back literally hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Being on a moral high horse might prevent you from further realizing that those who fought for those causes often started from the outside, not the inside. They created conditions over generations until it was finally acceptable for those on the inside to make such choices. That's how the world works, and yet you seem to think it works in exactly the opposite direction. Furthermore, none of those causes saw completion unless there were people in power sympathetic to them - which is exactly what your proposed plan of action seeks to remove.

So rather than being morally bankrupt, I think your perception of reality is what is actually bankrupt.

OK well let me lob a few apples at ya then:

"Why stand up against Joe McCarthy's bullying when he has so much power & could destroy me." "Why join the Danish resistance and undermine the nazis when they've already taken over." "Why protest the Vietnam war because Tricky Dick will never withdraw the troops." Oh, wait he did withdraw the troops when tide turned against the war.

Actually, come to think of it, war for profit and lust for empire does fall within your category of an institutionalized practice which has gone on for many thousands of years.

Well, adios, I'm not sure what this argument is about anymore.

My "proposed plan of action" is that UNLESS a representative changes his/her mind about their IWR vote, or admits it was a mistake, AND is actively working now to repair the very real damage that was done... then nope I am NOT going to support him/her. As I wrote above, I'm all for people changing their minds- that Ill support 110%. Just don't try to BS me and tell me a war resolution was anything but just that: a war resolution. A resolution to go TO WAR. That's where people's BS detectors go off and where you start to lose credibility. A Dem. candidate ignores this reality at his/her peril.

Believe it or not, I am actually coming at this from the perspective of wanting to see strengthening of the party.

is dishonest and those that don't want to take the issue to task and admit it is wrong and a foreign policy of attacking countries that haven't attacked you is wrong, then those politicians are wrong too.

Rationalize their actions any way you want that gets you around your growing, festering, frustrating Feingold thorn, but they all work for us and a personal public accounting from everyone of them is way past due.

We can't be asked to simply blindly trust their vague temporizing campaign mode rhetoric on where they are planning on going, if they won't even cop to the folly and treachery of where they've been.

And it's double-gauranteed that the closer they get in their respective races, they are going to get their inventory taken ten ways to Sunday by every media ho and opposing political hack in every debate and interview it comes up in, whether they like it or not. The media kick-off in this dialogue has already begun, effectively with Hillary, Kerry and Russ and there's no escape hatch, nor should there be. They've had three years to figure out what they want to say.

However they choose to dance it with the media--- I'm an American first and a Democrat second. Hawks or chickens, they're not whistling past all the graveyards of dead American kids and Iraqi men, women and children with my unquestioned vote without so much as one token shred of spoken remorse or accountability. Time to stop prolonging the inevitable.

regardless of what the IWR was or was not meant to accomplish it is still the perception of it in the minds of many and even in the minds of the administration. It tested the metal of everyone of our elected representatives and many failed. I don't care at this point what the IWR said or didn't say, it was a smokescreen and slight of hand by the administration and too many either willingly or unwittingly allowed themselves to fall into the trap. That doesn't happen when you stand on prinicple to begin with as did those who voted against it. They had the vision to see where this would lead while others hadn't a clue.

It is totally insulting to excuse this bit of compliance. as you have done in many posts on this thread, by saying there were seats that were unsafe and those who voted for the IWR had to to maintain them. That's tantamount to saying that those who died had to do so to maintain Dem hold in some districts rather than stand on principle. Those that did so don't deserve anything from us.

Even if the war would have gone ahead without Dem support that is no reason to have fed into this administration's machinations regarding it. There should have been a stronger stand against the insanity right there at its doorstep- with the IWR.

People who say he didn't are wrong! To them it's more important to prove that Democrats supported the war than it is to prove Bush violated the resolution. Bush tried to use the claim that Democrats supported the war, but people didn't buy it. It's his war, his invasion.

Anyway, Kerry's plan for withdrawal is getting a lot of support from anti-war groups and that's key!

The issue is still really important. Congress gave up its constitutionally required role: to declare war. Constitutionally, I am not sure how they got away with that, but they did. Far too much power is being condensed into the hands of a drunken frat boy who was never elected in the first place. And who screws up everything he touches (at least from the perspective of us serfs.)

A similar thing happened with Iran Contra. In the Boland Amendments, Congress said, "Thou shall not fuck with Nicaragua" thereby cutting off Bush I access to the purse. Well the rat bastard republicans ignored congress and had their own little private war, and found other PRIVATE funding for their misadventure. PRIVATE FUNDING for an illegal war, that had no oversight except the executive.

Also, as an aside, I find it hard to discuss things during these dark times. Because, having said the above, wasn't the "war resolution" really a resolution to put inspectors into Iraq, and IF IF IF they found WMDs, then further steps would be taken? Of course, the junta knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, and they invaded anyway.

Anyway, congress didn't give this coup-installed Bush junta the right to invade. Congress caved.

I think it is really important that Congress control when we go to war, even though nukes made war "over." That is what I mean by it is hard to discuss things these days.

I think with Congress so full of such douche bags, we are well and truly fucked.

That's the part you're failing to understand. The President is Commander-in-Chief, meaning he can do what he wishes with the military. Congress doesn't have to fund it, no, but the President can do whatever he wants with his troops.

I think the nation should follow the constitution, and have congress declare war.(**See disclaimer below) The WP resolution you cite, I know about. I think it is fucked up. That is my point.

It is wrong to have the Commander-in-Chief do what he wishes with the military. As you keep saying, tho, that's the way it appears to be. And I will continue to say: but that is fucked up and we should change that.

In the beginning, the founding fathers studied other systems of govt. They discovered that when the "Leader" has the power you say he has, things fall apart. The leader will always turn to war, because he can organize a society that way. For a short time anyway, because pretty soon, everything falls apart. That is why we should keep harping away, as tiresome as it gets.

I don't fail to understand what you claim it is that I fail to understand. I understand it, and I think it is fucked up. This "reality" has led us into some deep doo-doo. So why do we keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. The definition of insanity fits in here.

That is why the Iraq resolution--which wasn't even a resolution to go to war, it was a resolution for inspections, I thought--is important to keep bringing up. As Kuchinich said in his speech "We Did Not Authorize (insert atrocity here)." There ought to be a check on this out-of-control executive, even tho there doesn't appear to be.

**Bottom line is, for me: It is a bad idea to concentrate power into too few hands. The president should not be able to do whatever he wants. Even more crazy, I will now contradict everything I just said. Because ultimately, I think "War is over" and even Congress should not declare it. That is because when a nation goes to war, it has to "let it rip" / have "total war" Total war these days means NUKES. Nukes mean no more life on earth. That's why Lennon wore that t-shirt "War is over."

That is what I mean by: it is hard to discuss things during these dark days.

It is too much power, and unfortunately, it's an unforeseen consequence. The Founding Fathers probably didn't envision us taking part in humanitarian interventions - such a thing was largely unheard of prior to the 1900's. Either you declared war and fought or you stayed put.

Unfortunately, we're operating under the fucked up system and not what we think the system should be. And under the fucked up system, votes like IWR don't mean a damn thing. And you're right - it only authorized him to go to war if the cause was there and he failed to meet that criteria - which only further goes to show you how pointless the legislation was in the first place, as someone like Kucinich or Feingold could have taken him to court for that violation, and possibly could have won. They didn't because there was no point - it wouldn't have changed the invasion of Iraq in any way and would only serve to fuel the fires of "they don't support the troops!"

So far as "keeping harping away" - I'm not disagreeing at all on that sentiment. I just find it fruitless to keep harping on the IWR vote specifically. There is more than enough ammunition without having to use something that makes the people who are trying to actually get us out of the war now look bad. That's the entire point.

And I agree - it's often extremely difficult to talk about such topics lately. Doing it over the net doesn't help matters either. Lots of stuff is lost in translation.

You would not be tired of it. And I give Feingold big kudos for knowing the difference... Dwelling on something that happened and is STILL IN PROGRESS is not dwelling.. It is still in progress, and our people, and innocent Iraqis are still dying.. All of this is happening NOW, not four years ago and thanks again to those who sent my son to war NOT!!!!!!!

President Bush did. No one else. PERIOD.

I appreciate your particular emotions in this, but they are ill-placed.

You want to do something for your son? Hammer away at the politicians that aren't supporting some kind of disengagement strategy. Talking about IWR does little except neuter a lot of good Democrats that are actually trying to end this mess now. THAT IS THE POINT.

and that excuses any of them... Get real, I know the President is not operating in the light of day.. But congress and the senate needs to take the responsibility for allowing this to happen... That simple... I am hammering away at politicians, they know me in Washington, I call and write so much, and I am hammering away at the falsehoods that are being spread....

You keep thinking the sit on your ass and do nothing approach clears anyone of their responsibilities, that will get us far for sure....


I also give Kerry kudos for admitting his vote was a mistake... Wish more would at least come forward and acknowledge it...

And a LOT of Democrats are trying to do just that. So why are we focusing on something that happened 4 years ago that prevents them from doing exactly what we want them to do? You still have yet to explain why that makes any sense.

Iran is a possibility and it needs to be focused on... I applaud any efforts to end this war... I do however see the Democrats getting behind a bill to instill democracy in a country that elected their official, what am I supposed to think????

But don't make blanket statements about something that happened four years ago that hinders the ability of the ones who are trying to prevent it from happening again. That's my entire point.

are now seeing the light, I am applauding them..

I am saying to forget the IWR is a big mistake.. We must remember why it happened and make sure it does not happen again... I am saying I hope that others have learned by their mistakes.

Those like Murtha and Kerry are to be commended..

Those like Feingold and Kucinich should be commended as well....

Is there no grey area between remembering and taking frequent pot-shots at people who voted for it?

that is all I can say, is that is one weak argument...

Life is always easier as an absolutist. Sadly, I am not one.

then make some absurd statement with a vague reference... Yep, that should do it...

To somehow who thinks there are only two options for every problem? Sorry, but that's not a person I'm in the business of debating.

of being insulted.. I come here for discussion, not dissection.. You put the post out there, expect some responses.. Some you like, some you don't.. But when a person turns dismissive and defensive and insults, it is time to turn out the lights on these posts as well...

Best to you :hi:

There may well have been some, perhaps many, Democratic Reps and Senators who voted IWR because they believed it was necessary. Our beef is not with them. Our beef is with those who cynically went along with the herd.

Most of those people are still gung-ho supporting the war. So why not focus on their current asinine actions instead of something that happened four years ago that paints a much broader brush over a lot of good people that are trying to solve the problem?

by simple virtue of planned public political events, and I think we can expect that the media and partisan and internal-external politics of it to continue unabated. That's the unavoidable American political reality and consequences of this unpopular war, quaqmire, death, spending mayhem and crimes of war.


The Take Back America Conferenece.Three disparate positions among three high profile dems.

Hillary opposing any talk about setting troop withdrawal deadlines yet, Kerry delivering fiery "denunciation of war as a mistake" and supporting firm hard deadlines.

WAPO: Liberal Activists Boo Clinton
Rejection of Iraq Timetable Gets Cool Reception at Conference

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Page A10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html?nav=rss_politics

Peace Activists at Hillary Clinton’s Speech Try to Take Back “Take Back America”
by Medea Benjamin

DU thread about those reports here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1423452


Reactions to Russ Feingold's remarks about his own vote choice and that democrats have some accountability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1425984&mesg_id=1430911

Vash's thread here about "Feingold's pontificating" would appear at least in part to be reaction/continuation to these others.


Good point about the repubs, though. Any dems who don't want to frame their own positions, both in past context and future for themselves at this late date, we'll see the repubs and their hacks all too glad to do it for them, a fact quite acutely not lost on Kerry. Seems he, for one,contrary to advice here, doesn't care to risk a perception that he thinks his choice of something he did "four years ago already" was without Congressional consequence or undeserving of present attention. Kerry likers will like that. Kerry detractors and Hillary detractors might not unexectedly suggest that all of it could be construed as some level of playing politics with the war vote. Yet the admonition here seems to be mainly reserved for Feingold.

We're not going to drop it, so get used to it, or ignoring us.