IWR -- I am so sick of seeing only certain candidates criticized for this --

[Katherine Brengle]

Here are the Dem YES votes for the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


They all screwed up. There is no way for them to unmake this decision. Yes, it should be part of our decision-making process. But, Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat who screwed up on Iraq. 77 members of the Senate approved this bill.

Personally, I don't think she needs to "apologize" for it - she just needs to show me that she understands, in retrospect, that it was bad move and that she will use better judgment in the future. As far as I can tell, she has said this.

[havocmom]

1. Ahem, not all those people are running for President

That may have something to do with the attention those actually running are getting.

[LittleClarkie]

3. Neither is Kerry now

But he still gets flogged for it anyway.

[mtnsnake]

5. What, is he supposed to be immune from criticism for his part in voting for the IWR?

just because he decided not to run this time?

The criticism around here has always been selective, so why am I not surprised that there's a different standard for Hillary than there is for Kerry or whoever else.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Just rebutting the poster who said that most of the IWR voters aren't running for prez

Saying, I think, that running for prez adds more weight to their vote. Often i find that Kerry is still presented with others who are running for president as if he belongs in that group, and his vote matters like theirs matters because they're running for prez.

But he's not.

The only campaign he's running is to stop the war at the moment.


www.setadeadline.com

[havocmom]

25. The criticism here HAS been selective and mostly aimed at candidates for the Oval

I am still pissed at my senior senator, but he doesn't get a lot of press about anything, cuz he isn't running for the oval.

The other poster is just annoyed that I speak in general truths, and is trying to dissect gnats. Since I am not the one who pissed in their bowl of cereal, I don't worry much about attempts to personalize what was said as a generality ;)

[Katherine Brengle]

12. I understand that - but what about Edwards?

And a lot of people defended Kerry's vote last time around.

[spooky3]

48. If you check the many threads about him you will see plenty

of criticism of his role in IWR, for which he has apologized.

[venable]

53. Edwards rap on DU: murderer, bloody-handed, 'His war'

the vitriol is astonishing, especially against someone who TODAY is one of the most unequivocal anti-war voices.

[benddem]

2. But

Only Clinton, Edwards and Dodd are running for President.

[mike_c]

4. none of them deserve to be elected president of the united states....

Thank you for listing them again. There should be a permanent wall of shame somewhere with their names carved in it.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. So all of the announced or on-the-edge candidates are on the list

except for Obama & Kucinich, neither of whom were in the Senate at the time. (And both of whom presumably opposed the IWR at the time.)

Does that simplify our decision-making process?

[skipos]

9. No, because Richardson, Clark, Vilsack and Gravel didn't vote for it either. nt

[mike_c]

10. it certainly simplifies my decision making....

I will not vote for ANYONE who supported the IWR, with their vote or otherwise.

[Katherine Brengle]

13. I don't disagree with that --

I'd just like to see Edwards get slammed just as much as Clinton when it comes to this...

[Jackpine Radical]

18. Edwards did the big Me Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa trick

and now he's been washed in the blood of the lamb--whatever the hell that means--and so it doesn't count against him, like Bush's coke & DUI & AWOL & general drunken sottery got cancelled when he was born again--whatever the hell that means.

[SOS]

46. When Edwards' co-sponsorship of the IWR

was posted, he did get alot of heat.

As the campaigns proceed, the yes-voters will have to deal with it.
Edwards apology and admission of a mistake gets him slack though.

[Breeze54]

51. Edwards aknowledged the bad judgement. HRC refuses to! n/t

[zulchzulu]

6. What makes you think HRC will use "better judgment" next time

I would assume she was using her "better judgment" the first time she voted for the IWR.

The same template of lies is being used to go into Iran. How will her better "judgment" change any differently? She was hawkish on Iraq and is hawkish on Iran...

[Jackpine Radical]

Hawkish on Iran? I guess I haven't b een paying enough attention.

Is she really? (Although it wouldn't surprise me.)

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

8. What makes you think Dodd, Biden, Edwards are off the hook?

I see threads all the time attacking Edwards for his mistake.

Dodd and Biden usually don't merit the time it would take to attack them.

All four of them screwed up big time. It will not be the only part of my decision-making process, but it will play a big part. At this point, I can't see myself voting for any of the four. Each of them are equally bad. Does that make you feel better?

[ShortnFiery]

11. Yes, IMO, none of them should keep their positions ... I hope their Democratic

Opponents in their next Primary kicks their warmongering butts out of a job. ;)

[uppityperson]

14. They all need to be called on it, need to do as you say, ESP those running for pres.

I continue to call mine on it, who still hasn't said understands what happens or would do differently now. Anyone running for president gets especially raked over the coals on this. All running for president get the extra scrutiny because they are running for president. ESPECIALLY those running for president because that office holds more and different powers than Senate does. True, all running for pres need to be held to their actions.

[Bitwit1234]

15. And every single solitary time a newsperson gets near her

they push the mike in her face and say YOU VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR. blah blah blah....She has made a statement about this over and over. But since the republics have told their media to swiftboat her over this they will continue to slur and slur and slur.

Since most of the whole country wants us out of Iraq why in the hell don't stick the mike in a republics face and ask them the same question. Ask they why since American wants out of the war they aren't listening to the people and still have their head up bush butt.

[Katherine Brengle]

17. Amen.

[emulatorloo]

19. Well, Gene McCarthy was a great anti-war presidential candidate and "HE VOTED FOR THE WAR!!!!"

To me it seems real counterproductive -- if somebody voted for the IWR and is now working hard to end the war, I don't see any reason to keep flogging IWR.

IWR has been done to death. I get the arguments. Some don't seem to want to acknowledge that it was Bush who abused the process -- the libby trial and the Doug Feith revelations show that they would stop at nothing to rig up a case that Saddam had a nuke and was going to kill us all. I thought it was all bullshit at the time, but I didn't see all the crap the congress was shown. I can see how some might have thought, well if there is a slim chance, and we know that Colin Powell won't do anything rash, then maybe a little saber rattling will help Powell get some stuff done diplomatically.

Obviously it was all a big mistake. But if these people want to work hard to end the war, then I am all for it and feel this continual villification over this vote is counterproductive. We need strong voices in congress/elsewhere who can convince these idiot Republicans to STOP BACKING BUSH and do what is right for the country.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Different era, different circumstances

98 Senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. And at first glance LBJ was a lot more trustworthy than Bush. Also America had no history of getting itself stuck in military quagmires. Had Korea not ended well I think that might have been different.

Senator Byrd in his speech against the IWR stated that it was "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution all over again." We had the history of Vietnam this time to look back on as to why this would be a failure. We had military experts like Wes Clark and Jim Webb telling us that it could be a potential disaster. Most importantly, we had a trigger happy moron in the white house this time.

[emulatorloo]

27. Still seems wasteful to continue to villify people who are trying to end the war now/

while it is a diff era there are some real similatities between the Repubs and Nixon at the tipping point and where we are now with the Repubs and Bush. The Repubs need to wake up and smell the coffee --


I believe that the more Dem voices we have to pressure the Republicans to give up their blind support of Nixon Bush and do what is right for the country ,the better. Endlessly flogging the IWR vote seems counterproductive.


On edit: fix format

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Clinton and Edwards don't resemble McCarthy and Kennedy in '68

They're more like Ed Muskie in 1972. When McCarthy and Kennedy supported pulling out of Vietnam it was actually politically risky because the country was deeply divided over it. When Muskie did it in '72 there was no political risk, everybody was sick and tired of the war.

Had Clinton or Edwards been saying exactly what they're saying now in 2004 then I'd be 100% behind either one of them. But neither of them did, they were still supporting the war just arguing that it should be handled differently.

I want someone in the oval office who does things that are right even if they are unpopular. Clinton and Edwards have never lead on the war, they have merely followed public sentiment. Furthermore, they're not even proposing cutting the funding (which could be done without a single Republican vote) because that's also politically risky.

[LWolf]

20. True, but most of those 77

are not asking for my vote, or to be put in the position of commander in chief of the nation.

[jab105]

21. And I would not vote for ONE of them in the primary...

I would begrudgingly vote for them in the general, but that's it...

And, this includes Edwards...I don't care if he apologized after 50% of people polled wanted us out, those senators OWED it to US to see this before we went into Iraq (I feel that if I could speak out before the war, and see what the results would be, then SEnators should have also)...

I'm registered independent, but I will register democratic if only the vote against one of those mentioned above...

GO OBAMA (and Clark/Gore if they choose to run, then I'd have a tough decision!)!!

[NCarolinawoman]

23. Edwards is already scheduled to speak at another AIPAC meeting in March.

I read this in the paper today. (News and Observer)

Will Hillary be attending also? Article I read spoke of the money game and mentioned how both of these candidates are courting AIPAC.

Will they once again be giving hawk-like speeches about Iran? They probably wouldn't be getting any money, otherwise.

How can we trust that these two have learned anything?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. screw edwards. AIPAC is our enemy.

as is the AEI.
shame on you, John. shame on you indeed.

[Trajan]

24. Criticizing is GOOD ....

Letting them know they fucked up is EXACTLY what they need to hear .. everyday ...

BUT ...

The constant drumbeat against them is, in the end, cannibalistic ...

Yeah ... I am PISSED they voted for IWR ... BUT: I will vote for one of them in the general election, if they make it there ....

Criticize ... correct ... move on .....

I dont support one candidate ... I support all of them ..... so I get frustrated by the constant circular firing squad here .... but when all is said and done, NONE will be affected by the views expressed here in DU at the general election .... at 100,000 members, we represent a miniscule direct portion of the electorate, and even if we extrapolated from the views presented here, we still would only find less than 1% of liberals willing to NOT vote for a candidate because of their IWR vote ....

Things are going to remain ugly here in the interim as candidate supporters break out the 'big guns' and try to demean and diminish the other Democratic party candidates; all in support of their own faction .....

It is unfortunate, but that is how it is going to transpire here until the convention ....

I will remember those who demean my party for short term partisan gain, for many years to come ....

I am sure I am not alone ...

[Adelante]

26. You are right about that

Hillary is not treated equally with Edwards on this at all.

[AtomicKitten]

29. You are correct, mam.

The pretzel logic employed and the inequity of rationalization with which these 28 Senators are treated and discussed here at DU reeks.

Thanks for calling bullshit on it. I try to do the same on a regular basis.

[incapsulated]

30. Maybe she should issue some bullshit "apology" for it

And then everyone will get off her back, right?

Right?

hahaha.

We all KNOW how they fucking voted. If it's that much of an issue chose another candidate. (not directed at you, Katherine.)

[MadHound]

31. I criticize all who voted for war

It is a sad testament to their moral fiber, and their willingness to ignore their constituents wishes. I continue to criticize Hillary because she has, up until very recently, been a prominent supporter of this illegal, immoral war. I also find fault with her stance on other issues, and the fact that she is the corporate candidate in this election. Corporations are well represented in our country, we need no more of their reprasenatives in the WH.

[Skittles]

41. SAME HERE

I KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND THEIR VOTE WILL FOREVER DISGUST ME

[sandnsea]

32. Joe Lieberman

Not every vote is equal to every other vote. What they said at the time of the vote, at the time of the war, since the war, about the yellowcake and the DSM, about Bush and his lies. It's not enough to jump on the anti-Bush war bandwagon at this late date. I'll never forget Bill cozying up to Bush and covering his ass, time and time again. There are people who voted against the IWR but are more tepid about how to get out then some who voted for it. I suggest people track what the candidates said all the way through, and then make their decision.

[Clarkie1]

35. I have a problem with part of what you said there.

"There are people who voted against the IWR but are more tepid about how to get out then some who voted for it. I suggest people track what the candidates said all the way through, and then make their decision."

See, I don't see it as a positive things when politicians put their finger to the wind...

[sandnsea]

37. Who said finger in the wind was positive?

I said people need to track what candidates did and said all the way through, which ought to inform them as to the finger-lickers.

[Clarkie1]

38. The finger-lickers

would certainly not be the ones "who voted against the IWR but are more tepid about how to get out then some who voted for it."

Don't want to turn this into a detailed policy debate, just making a point about finger-lickers such as Edwards, Hillary,...etc.

[sandnsea]

40. They might be

Here's the list of those who voted no. They aren't all supporting a withdrawal strategy just because they voted no in the first place. I'm sure there's been some finger-licking for Bingaman, Conrad, Murray, Stabenow, maybe others. They've got to have access to money to run and win too and it's risky to alienate the centrist Dems.

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[SOS]

47. There are great Senators on that list

I wish a couple of them would run!

Boxer/Corzine 2008

[fuzzyball]

33. Great post K & R...Hypocracy on DU re: HRC has no limits

About time someone pointed out the hypocracy on DU on
singling out Hillary Clinton for IWR votes.
Hypocracy has no limits!!!

[Clarkie1]

34. Here's why....HRC is the one on that list leading in the primary race.

And I make no apologies whatsover for focusing on her. Her vote was more important than the rest because she fancies herself the next POTUS, and has a good shot of being the next POTUS.

I wanted her stopped (whether or not Clark runs), and I make no apologies for that. The points I have raised about her fitness for leader of the free world are legitimate, and she better get ready for more of the same and more until the nominating process is complete. That vote showed either a tremendous amount of stupidity or a serious lack of integrity...and I don't believe she's stupid.

And, oh yeah, I want Edwards stopped, too.

Obama I can live with although he's not my first choice if Clark runs. From what I've seen of Obama he has intelligence, integrity, and promise. He might grow into a great leader someday. Lincoln did.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. what you say. Don't ignore RIchardson, though.

another quality person

[Clarkie1]

45. Oh, I won't. I hope he gets some traction. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

50. I like Richardson best of the ones who have announced. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Byrd 2008!

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. DU cares more about rehashing the IWR vote than it does about ending the war now

Based on the number of threads devoted to beating the thoroughly-dead horse that is the IWR versus the number of threads about any legislative action currently being taken to draw down or withdraw troops.

But that's because moral purity and judgmentalism is what holier-than-thou people do best, and I think the left-wing blogosphere can match the right-wing for sanctimonious self-righteousness any day of the week.

Flame away.

[politicasista]

49. No, you are right n/t

[vssmith]

44. Most of us on this message board

were smart (prescient or lucky) enough to be against the war from the beginning. Why shouldn't we expect our next POTUS to be at least as smart as we were.

[Breeze54]

52. Right on! Totally agree!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[venable]

54. most on DU didn't have George Tenet look them in the eye and say

that millions of Americans would die if Saddam were not taken out. Granted, many would not have believed him, but it's not the same playing field. I don't want to make excuses for my guy, Edwards, and I sent him, and others, many letters saying listen to Scott Ritter. But, there is a difference, even if Edwards (correctly) won't point it out.