Chafee 'I did my homework on the Iraq war' as did others including Sanders. I am sorry ...

[slipslidingaway]

it is very easy to say, but the really hard part is making the right decision at the right moment in history and having the foresight to see the consequences of one's vote and what they could have done to influence others "at the time."

Great speeches and votes are given in advance of a situation, not in hindsight.

[Nite Owl]

1. He is so right. That vote

Shows good judgement on the part of the no votes and very bad and consequential on the part of the yes votes. No excuses, the evidence to vote against the war was there and most of us saw it so why couldn't they-- fear of being accused of being a 'liberal'and not conservative enough, not a centrist (that word makes me sick).

[slipslidingaway]

4. Exactly! You have to do the work in advance of casting a vote, saying I'm sorry and later on ...

saying you have a different vision for the future just does not cut it.

Words are cheap, actions are expensive.

[Skwmom]

2. People sent people to war because it was the political thing to do. n/t

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Politicians thought they would lose their seats if they voted against it

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

public opinion was all for the war despite the false information about the WMDs. Only brave people voted against it. Bernie. Barack spoke against it.

[cali]

6. Obama didn't have a vote to cqst

[slipslidingaway]

8. So true, saying something, when your decision does not translate into an action ...

is less meaningful.

It equates to one being asked what would you do in a certain circumstance or actually having the ability to change the outcome, a very different set of circumstances.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Yes they did, Barack did not have a vote, Hillary, Biden, Sanders did ...

Barack gave one speech, but he did not have a seat to lose and therefore could not change history.

Some demonstrate courage, more than others, when it really matters by casting their vote.

[Samantha]

16. Many Dems opposed preemptive war on Iraq

And here is just one of them (Byrd's I Weep For My Country speech):

and here is another:

http://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/sais_iraq

Even Ron Paul got it right:

Even the true winner of the 2000 election stepped up to the plate:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm

But none of these speeches as well as all of the others would have not been necessary had Gore not been robbed of his destiny because 9/11 would not have happened under a Gore administration.

Sam

[oasis]

19. Correct. If Scalia's Supreme Court had not stolen the 2000 election

for Bush, no 9/11 and no Iraq War.

The world would have a different look today if Gore had taken his rightful place in th Oval Office.

[Stardust]

21. Wasn't there a book written about the aftermath of a different outcome in the 2000 election? Sigh

[oasis]

22. I'm sure there was, don't know the title. More than a few

books were written on the actual theft itself.

One of them is, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, by Alan Dershowitz, the famous Claus Von Bulow and O.J. Simpson attorney.

Dershowitz doesn't tout the book nowadays, likely because after 9/11 he became a complete sellout for Bush/Cheney and their war in Iraq.

If you google Dershowitz's name for books it's not listed with the many other books he's authored. I had to refresh my mind for the title in order to search for the book.

[slipslidingaway]

20. You highlight the need to expand one's vision across party lines and I thank you ...

too often we see narratives only with a single lens and immediately dismiss 'the messenger' because he or she does not have the correct label.

We could expand on these confining labels to not only D or R but also to race, religion and gender and we definitely should.

We need to find and seek common bonds instead of looking to divide.

Thank you!

[Samantha]

35. Thank you so much for your kind words and I certainly agree

with your further thoughts about seeking common bonds rather than looking to divide.

During the 2000 election campaign, one of Karl Rove's strategies was to keep Americans divided by constantly having hot-button issues out on the debate table. This generation against that generation. African-Americans versus Caucasians. Pro-life against pro-choice. You name is -- anything that makes an American voter immediately fired up would be chronically in debate while the really important issues were being ignored. That trend continues today. It is to time to just not let ourselves be diverted or distracted by what our opponents are doing as we stand in the political potholes they have dug for us.

Sam

[slipslidingaway]

39. You are welcome and crossing the divide to find common ground is what needs to be done ...

IMHO if the majority of people want their interests to be heard. This does not mean compromising on core beliefs, those should not be on the table.

But there are many issues on which people can come together, that is the difference between a candidate like Sanders who goes to Liberty University and other corporate candidates that speak of reducing entitlements and reach across the aisle to compromise on core issues.

You are so right, most people are tired of the divisiveness that has taken hold of our society ... and just maybe those people need a gentle push or reminder

[Uncle Joe]

24. That's a good post, Samantha.

[Samantha]

37. Thank you Uncle Joe

This is a very serious issue, and I felt a need to spend some time reviewing the facts and sharing them.

Sam

[BlueStateLib]

26. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and

Mr. BYRD: We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was a vote for war, why was Iraq invaded by Hans Blix and U.N. Weapons Inspectors

Clinton: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

http://aumf.awardspace.com/
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php

[Samantha]

32. There were a lot of things said over different points in time

There is no question, however, that Byrd did not condone an invasion. There are a series of speeches he gave, I looked at several last night and you might want to listen to those yourself. They are very powerful. I think Saddam was a threat but mostly to his neighbors as opposed to the United States. Some people said as despicable of a human being he was, his reputation and the fear people in that area held for him was what kept a very unstable region somewhat feet on the ground. In hindsight, I think these people were correct -- just look at the Middle East now.

And while it is often said most Americans supported the war, the majority who did conditioned it upon Congress approving it, and some both Congress and the UN approving it. Minus both of those, only 37 percent of the Country supported it.

I have a different take on that resolution than anyone else. As you probably know, the President can call up the military, but only in the event we have been attacked. He can't order the military into an invasion absent that -- Congress has the authority for that.

When Bush asked for that resolution, my immediate reaction to that -- being the political animal I am -- was that he was covering his own flank against any future retribution U.S. opponents of the war might organize should Bush's preeminent attack blow up in his face. Impeachment, accusations of war crimes, that kind of defamation. Holding that petition with names of those who supported Bush's ungodly invasion, and the ensuing vote cast, gave Bush a cloak of cover for his flank.

I think it is a good thing we continue to discuss this tragedy today and how and why it happened because some of our younger posters at DU are not so much aware as to how in the h*ll this ever happened.

Sam

[Peace Patriot]

25. "Public opinion was all for the war"--not true!

I was following public opinion polls very closely just prior to the invasion of Iraq--frankly, because I wanted to know if my fellow and sister Americans had gone Bushwhacko bonkers--and I was amazed to find that ALL polls showed a MAJORITY opposed to the Iraq War--on average, about 55%. I was also amazed at how buried this information was.

About half that 55% majority said they would support the war if it was a United Nations peacekeeping mission (i.e., they didn't trust Bush, but would support military action if there was general international consensus that such action was needed--which, of course, there never was--far from it); the other half were opposed to war in general.

For perspective: It wasn't until the Vietnam War was nearly over that a majority of Americans opposed it. (I lived through that one, too.) So, 55%, right off the bat, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, is very impressive, as to our people's ability to resist war propaganda.

Most people don't know this. The corporate media conspired to ensure that we didn't know what our fellow and sister Americans were actually thinking.

This is one of the things that I think is the most sinister about corporate 'news' monopolies--that they can make you feel that you are alone and isolated in your desire for a peaceful country or your desire for social justice; they can make you feel that you are in a minority when the truth is that you are part of a majority; they can make you feel that most other Americans are stupid, ignorant, ill-informed and alien.

BEWARE of the impressions you get from the corporate 'news' monopolies about what our people really want!

[BlueStateLib]

28. ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 27, 2003

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 27, 2003. N=508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?"

Approve 69%
Disapprove 26%
No Opinion 5%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq17.htm

[slipslidingaway]

5. Then they were cowards and do not deserve my vote ...

one problem is that both parties expect a certain segment of the vote, no matter how much that party is screwing them.

[elleng]

9. Chafee did very well.

[slipslidingaway]

11. He spoke to the difference of people who put thought into that vote and those who said I'm sorry ...

and that is a telling difference!

Candidates should be judged on their records, not on their promises and speeches.

[elleng]

12. Yes indeed.

Among other things, he said he was maybe the only congressperson to visit CIA to examine evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Finding NONE, he voted 'NO.'

[slipslidingaway]

17. Yes, I want a leader who was curious enough to expend the energy required on a consequential vote ..

and not someone who was fooled by Bush/Cheney.

The millions of lives that were affected by that vote deserve more than 'I made a mistake.'

Some decisions and mistakes carry more weight, this was a monumental vote/decision which cannot easily be overlooked by the millions of people affected and which Should have consequences.

[elleng]

33. Yes, a huge decision and vote,

for which he deserves more than mere 'thanks,' imo.

[rhett o rick]

10. I am amazed and disappointed with those here that can ignore the damage that decision

brought. How horrible does it have to be before some here would decide that they should switch from their authoritarian leader to someone else. Seriously, how many children must die horrible deaths before some recognize that the decision that brought their deaths was wrong and should not be ignored. It wasn't some "mistake". H. Clinton knew what was true and she knew what the Bush family would do, but she not only went along, she helped them push the lies.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Me too, that decision and the backlash will haunt us for years as it should, millions of people ...

were displaced by the invasion of Iraq and we turn our backs and pretend we had nothing to do with destabilizing the region.

Just like we pretended we had nothing to do with the unrest in the area in the region in the 1950's.

Too many Dems helped Bush push the lies and that does not translate into automatic votes along party lines, we are not falling into line, you have to earn our votes. Strange, but I feel some older and younger voters want to vote for something and not just vote against something.

Politics are uniting the young and the old.

That is a good thing

[LeftOfWest]

27. oily bloodbath of lies.

slaughter, abject horrific slaughter.

'she helped them push the lies'. no way around that ever.

[rhett o rick]

38. How can some just rationalize away the hundreds of thousands of deaths?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. This is a jab at someone,....now if we could just figure out who....

[slipslidingaway]

18. I think we all know :))) but if the shoe fits! n/t

[sabrina 1]

15. He is 100% right and he suffered real consequences within his party when he did that.

Hillary would not have. And I'm sick to death of people telling us 'well she evolved'. How many times has she had to evolve on major issues, and how much harm is done when a politician doesn't evolve in time avoid causing that harm?

Elected office is not a therapy session where people go to figure things out.

As Chafee says, it requires Judgement and Foresight, or there are dire consequences for many people when a politician doesn't possess those abilities.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Yes he did and I love this statement of yours ...

"Elected office is not a therapy session where people go to figure things out."

This was a life or death altering event for millions of people and should be treated as such, it has become all too convenient for politicians to say years later 'I made a mistake'

Such as Greenspan saying many years later that 'his model was flawed' when for years, many pointed out those flaws.

"As Chafee says, it requires Judgement and Foresight, or there are dire consequences for many people when a politician doesn't possess those abilities."

Sorry to repeat again what you said, but I could not have said it better!

[oberliner]

29. Weird that Chafee has zero support

Literally zero people select him as their candidate in more than a few polls.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. He was correct about the IWR vote, but incorrect about his many years of voting for Bushco policy

He is a man who once voted for a guy named George Bush who started a war with Iraq then a few years later voted for another guy named George Bush and then acted all shocked when he wanted to start a war in Iraq. Yes, he voted not to jump off the cliff but he had voted to walk up to the edge with Cheney in the lead.

[restorefreedom]

30. think about this

chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against the war, during a time when Republicans were clearly banging war drums. Hillary on the other hand, voted for the war at a time when many Democrats were questioning it and voting against it. The difference between these two could not be brighter with a neon sign. Chafee voted his conscience no matter what the consequences, and Hillary voted FOR AN UNJUST WAR after doing the political calculation and voted in a way that would advance her career over what is right.

putting political ambitions over the well-being of the country. Not a quality we can have in our president.

[Samantha]

34. Your reasoning about why Hillary voted to give Bush* the authorization he wanted is spot on

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)

We had many heavy duty arguments here at DU over this very thing at the time it was ongoing. At one point I posted that Hillary knew very well Bush* could not be believed or trusted. She also knew she planned to run for president in the future, and this was her chance to demonstrate that as a woman she had the willpower to authorize a war. She could be just as hawkish as her Republican cohorts.

I was so angry at our politicians who supported the war for their own self-serving reasons, I point blank stated before the vote that I would never vote for any Dem to be President who supported a preemptive attack on Iraq. Never ever. Even Kerry voted for it.

A politician who is not a big enough person to put his or her self-interests aside for the sake of simply doing the right thing for this Country should not entertain any thoughts of holding the Office of the President of the United States.

This in no way should be interpreted to mean I "hate" Hillary because I do not. There have times over the years when I have admired her, and to a certain extent I still do. But I am not supporting her for President at this time because of her support for that petition.

Sam

[restorefreedom]

36. exactly, sam

she had to dispel the fear that a woman would not have the chops to go to war. even back then i believe she was running for president as you mentioned.

i do not hate her either. but i have always despised dick's war, and i will never forget the names of those who supported it or those who tried to stop it. it is the closest thing i will ever have to a litmus test for a candidate.

[slipslidingaway]

40. Unfortunately for some, votes are also about political considerations ...

and again unfortunately the millions of lives affected by a war of aggression do not factor into that vote. Shame on us and the people who do not recognize the insecurity and hardship so many people have endured.

Many people in Iraq fled to Syria and now some of those same people are fleeing again, there was ample evidence to 'not go along' with the lies and now hundreds of thousands of people are in a real mess.

And some do not like us, that is the price we now have to pay for 'political calculations.'

[restorefreedom]

41. well said. nt

[slipslidingaway]

42. Thanks ...

My laptop is not liking DU, so sorry for the slow responses.

[restorefreedom]

43. my ipad often gets quite snitty with du :) nt