The reason we're still fighting a pitched battle over the IWR: Revisionist History

[cali]

Because for all the assertions that those who voted for it weren't really voting for war; weren't really giving W a blank check, but were actually voting for diplomacy, the bottom line is that it was was what it was- a vote that gave w a blank check. There were those democrats who voted for it and those who voted against it. Bright line clear.

There were those that stated the obvious eloquently- that it was a blank check, Tonkin Gulf Resolution redux- and those that stated the obscure muddily- that they were voting for it for diplomacy, to give bush a stronger hand.

I believe that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards voted for it because all three had presidential ambitions and in their calculations a vote against the IWR was too big a political liability.

The pretense and revisionist theories that come from those who want to make this into something that had all these shades of gray is always going to crash into the reality of the fact that they voted to give bush a blank check- and boy did he put a lot of zeros written in a lot of blood on that check.

Voting yes was shameful and in my book, it was inexcusable. Every Congress person who voted for the IWR is complicit with a horrendous and pointless war.

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. "

-Patrick Leahy

[hrmjustin]

1. I like Hillary but I agree that was her worst moment imo.

[hrmjustin]

25. I don't know if she did.

[bvar22]

33. I KNOW she hasn't apologized for her vote,

and in fact,
she doubled down in 2008 claiming it was the RIGHT vote,
and that she would do it again.

[hrmjustin]

35. I never understood her and Schumer on that vote.

[bvar22]

56. Oh, I understand it.

Hillary and the others were more worried about the personal political consequences than the thousand they were sentencing to death.

I was in St Paul, Minnesota at that time, working on the Wellstone re-election campaign.
Wellstone was in a very close race against Republican Norm Coleman for his Senate seat.
The Vote For WAR was scheduled in October, just a few weeks ahead of the election.

War Lust was at a peak, and the Media were Beating the War Drums 24/7.
All the Talking Heads and Political Experts were in agreement that if Wellstone voted against the AUMF, it would cost him his re-election.

Believing that this NO would would cost him his Senate seat,
he voted his conscience anyway.
Later, at a meeting with his campaign workers at his HQ in St Paul,
he apologized and and said,
"Sometimes, a man just has to do the RIGHT THING.
For me, this was one of those times."

Ironically, after this vote, Wellstone surged ahead in the polls,
even in conservative areas of Minnesota.
Seems that voters appreciate honest politicians who STAND UP for their beliefs.
That is called "integrity".



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Ironically, better politics would've been listening to people who knew what they were talking about

You didn't have to be a pacifist or even a liberal to oppose the Iraq War. There were plenty in the military establishment and intelligence communities who weren't "yes men" for the administration and knew that most likely it was going to be a complete fucking disaster. Had I been in Hillary's position, I would've gone looking for some expert advice from people who weren't pushing Bush's agenda.

[Scuba]

80. Bingo on Hillary's motives, uncaring. Wellstone's vote was popular? Well, duh?

[hrmjustin]

40. As I said I disagreed with her vote.

[ProSense]

2. Did Leahy believe Saddam had WMD?

Did he say this:

<...>

But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.

In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.

We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war

I notice you left this question hanging:

Did he believe Bush's lie?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post66

[cali]

3. lol. your usual thoughtful response, pro.

[ProSense]

6. Did Leahy believe Bush's lie?

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold, Kennedy and Leahy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy and Leahy voted for, Feingold voted against.

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post39

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. care to answer ProSense's questions?

[ProSense]

11. It'll never happen. n/t

[neverforget]

41. Speaking of which care to answer this from a week ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4565713

[ProSense]

46. That was a

CYA question after being called out for making a bogus accusation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post181

[neverforget]

50. Ok, no answer then to a simple question

[ProSense]

51. Suggestion:

Poke around like you did before and come up with your own answer. Just think about how much fun you had attempting the last gotcha.

[neverforget]

60. Jeez Pro. Sorry I asked you a question that you thought was a gotcha question.

My answer is that you think under Bush or a Republican it's bad but under Obama or a Democrat it's just fine. Carry on indeed.

[ProSense]

63. Ah,

"Jeez Pro. Sorry I asked you a question that you thought was a gotcha question.

My answer is that you think under Bush or a Republican it's bad but under Obama or a Democrat it's just fine. Carry on indeed."

...so you're still trying to justify the bullshit accusation you were called on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post181

I mean, I'm sensing a desperate circular argument.

[neverforget]

65. It's a simple question that you can clarify or you can continue to avoid

answering the question.

[ProSense]

66. I will

"It's a simple question that you can clarify or you can continue to avoid answering the question."

...if you sincerely apologize for this bullshit accusation and delete it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post172

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post181

Otherwise, this is just your attempt at findng justification for it.

[neverforget]

69. That was then. This is now taking place under a Democratic President.

"Otherwise, this is just your attempt at findng justification for it."

Just trying to get an answer from you Pro of which it's not coming so I found this gif of a dog chasing it's tail.

[ProSense]

70. That

gif reminds me of the FAIL (your attempted gotcha) followed by the circular argument (the CYA arugment).

Condition unmet. You know the terms.

[neverforget]

71. Yay! I got the

<----truly honored Pro! Especially since you refuse to answer the question.

[ProSense]

72. .

[neverforget]

75. It's pretty funny isn't it?

I love watching dogs chase their tails.

Have a good night ProSense!

[cali]

12. I've answered them over and over and over and over again

in other threads, including in one today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4597642

and all you have to do is read Leahy's comments here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm

[ProSense]

15. Did Leahy believe Bush's lie?

"I've answered them over and over and over and over again"

You didn't answer that question here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post66

In fact, you've been avoding such questions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023635687#post15

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023635687#post17

[stupidicus]

29. again, that matters how?

he obviously characterized them as lies after the fact, and likely had suspicions which would explain his not voting for it, at least in part.

This included the war in Iraq, he said. “There were lies told to the American people all the way through.” http://sudhan.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/senator-seeks-bush-era-truth-commission/

apparently cali's mentioning of HC sent you into a dodging tailspin, no?

[ProSense]

32. LOL!

He believed the lies, but "he obviously characterized them as lies after the fact"



"apparently cali's mentioning of HC sent you into a dodging tailspin, no?"



Hillary? Me?

[stupidicus]

54. my my, the always hilariously _____ "LOL" defense

I have no chronological list of quotes that shows his evolving from wanting to give Bush the benefit of the doubt pre-war to the quote I provided, but feel free to look for one. Hell, it coulda been when Bush kicked out the inspectors and invaded for all I know.

And what's so funny about my assuming that you'll be a HC supporter in 2016 is a mystery as well. DO you think I have knowledge of all your political stuff? I really don't follow you at all, and all these encounters are likely more the product of your high participation rate here than anything else. More often than not these encounters are also about a very narrow and specific case of some kind, and your support for or lack thereof for HC isn't in my memory banks, which doesn't have many leaks.

none of this garbage explains why you're objecting so to the OPer comparing leahy to any of those they did, although you did present your losing case in the other post.

[ProSense]

55. Well, stupidicus

"And what's so funny about my assuming that you'll be a HC supporter in 2016 is a mystery as well. DO you think I have knowledge of all your political stuff? "

...if you didn't want me laughing, you, lacking any "knowledge," shouldn't have made this comment: "apparently cali's mentioning of HC sent you into a dodging tailspin, no?"

[stupidicus]

59. I see

I should assume that you find what would be a natural assumption funny?

We've already established that this is really all about you defending Kerry against real or imagined assaults on his judgement or whatnot. Why would I assume your unclear motive and goal pertained to him as opposed to the upcoming biggy in 2016, you know, when you apparently won't be voting for HC?

I guess if you find that funny, you must be a real hoot out on the town, no?

meanwhile, the fact that Kerry is vulnerable to charges apparently posed is not gonna be altered by an endless succession of "LOL" posts accompanied with emoticons, and so far the reasons why remain wholly unrebutted. Maybe that was a factor in his loss to Bush in 2004. Maybe you could look into that as well, and satisfy my now various requests you've less than artfully dodge with some of those blue links you're so DU famous for, no?

[ProSense]

61. Here's the thing:

Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Kerry is going to do his job regardless of handwringing over the IWR vote.

[stupidicus]

68. and who doubted that?

was there ever a question about whether he was gonna remain in the position or not?

All you're witnessing is the growing discontent with what is becoming the old dem guard, and some of them are never gonna escape their records. And although I haven't seen it articulated elsewhere, imo what is truly behind it is not just Kerry symbolizing whether fair or not, but also our collective failure with the Iraq War and the widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of prosecution of the Bush regime for depriving of us of the moral authority Kerry could have otherwise spoke with, and for us all.

That's what most of your debates with those like me revolve around, don't they, this question as to who is and isn't a problem in the dem party? It's all about what we're all willing to settle for and why, and that's what fills the gulf between you, me, and everyone here we respectively lock horns with.

as well as the one between you and cali on this isse it would seem...

[ProSense]

74. No,

"All you're witnessing is the growing discontent with what is becoming the old dem guard, and some of them are never gonna escape their records."

...what you're "witnessing" is the same people who have been attacking Kerry since 2004, still attacking Kerry.

Most Americans don't give a shit about their handwringing.


Americans Laud Kerry's Efforts as Secretary of State
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164411/americans-laud-kerry-efforts-secretary-state.aspx

[stupidicus]

81. that's relatively meaningless alone

given it's age, and the simple fact that it doesn't have anything specifically to do with their feelings about his Iraq War vote, nor the recent comment claiming moral authority in such matters this country lacks.

That was a low point in his current position, and one rightly mocked imo.

Are you confused about the fact that a poll about his performance in that role is a different issue, and much more narrow in roles and scope than the much broader thing I argued? It in no way invalidates what I asserted, it merely shows that last year he enjoyed a high approval rating for his role then, or now. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/03/05/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-approval-rating-rising/

you're just not so subtlely suggesting that I accept your baseless assumption that those numbers reflect the feelings about his entire record as opposed to his role as SoS alone as the poll sought to measure.

WHat are the chances of that occurring do you think?

[joeybee12]

5. What a meaningless post...

He's talking about letting inspectors in and see if those claims were valid...which they weren't, but clearly he didn't want to give Bush a blank check.

[ProSense]

7. What an uninformed response. n/t

[joeybee12]

9. You're really ridiculous...you're trying to interject a totally unrelated

issue as a response, which has nothing to do with Cali's post...it's pathetic and it's a cheap shot. I'd put you on ignore, but you really are good for a laugh at times...not for real information, though.

[ProSense]

10. No, I'm not. It's absolutely related to Leahy's position, and

don't pretend the OP didn't start this post citing Leahy after being asked the question in the other thread.

[progressoid]

28. It's her SOP

[ProSense]

34. What's yours? Hi-fiving nonsensical comments? n/t

[progressoid]

67. .

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. Who cares? We knew better and we were proven right.

[ProSense]

17. I care, and it was a simple question. n/t

[stevenleser]

77. You didn't know. Guessing right on a 50-50 Boolean proposition doesn't mean 'you knew' nt

[stupidicus]

26. meaningless and evasive garbage

what he thought at one time is meaningless compared to his actual record on the matter.

Senator Leahy opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and consistently voted against funding the war as an open-ended conflict. He supported legislation to withdraw our troops, shorten deployment durations, and shift our strategy to focus on addressing the real threat of terrorism. Senator Leahy applauded the Obama administration’s efforts to conclude the war in Iraq at the end of 2011 and shift our nation’s resources to achieving the responsible end to the war in Afghanistan. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/defense

[ProSense]

30. The "meaningless and evasive garbage" is

still trying to prove the IWR vote means Kerry can't do his job.

The whole point of the BS debate resurfacing is because some people have ulterior motives and don't want the U.S. calling out Putin.

I mean, this BS didn't surface when Kerry called out Netanyahu or in his dealing with Iran.

Senator Leahy opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and consistently voted against funding the war as an open-ended conflict. He supported legislation to withdraw our troops, shorten deployment durations, and shift our strategy to focus on addressing the real threat of terrorism. Senator Leahy applauded the Obama administration’s efforts to conclude the war in Iraq at the end of 2011 and shift our nation’s resources to achieving the responsible end to the war in Afghanistan. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/defense

He also believe that Saddam had WMD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024598834#post2

He voted for at least two other amendments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024598834#post6

The "legislation to withdraw our troops" that he supported was Kerry-Feingold, which Hillary voted against.

[stupidicus]

49. I see no evidence of that

although I can certainly understand the hilarity I found in Kerry getting on the moral high horse about what countries like us do, and as is commonly the case when a "Do as I say..." situation arises.

And it's certainly fair play to be comparing and contrasting Kerry's record on such matters with those having the polar opposite record, as it is with Hillary as well. After all, isn't that one of the many things that added up to BHO prevailing over her and getting the nod?

Even if what you say is true here regarding a case being made I'm not privy to, all it adds up to is you arguing that the same kinda stuff that aided BHO over Hillary shouldn't or can't have the utility your opposition is asserting it should and can, and who are using it accordingly.

I don't see that as a "winning" case for you at all.

[ProSense]

53. LOL!

"And it's certainly fair play to be comparing and contrasting Kerry's record on such matters with those having the polar opposite record, as it is with Hillary as well. After all, isn't that one of the many things that added up to BHO prevailing over her and getting the nod? "

What the hell does Kerry's vote have to do with Obama?

[stupidicus]

57. have somebody explain it to you

if you can't understand that using leahy as an example of the proper position on the Iraq War in a real or imagined effort to undermine Kerry's judgement is "just like" the way BHO used HC's vote against her. "Cali" is making the identical argument it appears to me using leahy that BHO made for himself against HC. I can't and won't dummy it down any further for you. Obviously the vote for the Iraq War had a negative effect if one assumes BHO's use of it -- on the basis of the judgement call it was -- assisted him in winning, and there's nothing more or less fair about indicting Kerry on the same grounds.

that's why you lose. So spare me the always _____ "LOL" defenses

[Hippo_Tron]

73. WMD was a really stupid term used by Bush to conflate chemical/biological and nuclear weapons

Did Pat Leahy and the rest of the world believe that Saddam had some form of chemical and/or biological weapons? Yes, he did because Saddam was hell bent on convincing the world that he had those weapons in order to deter Iran and other adversaries from attacking.

Was Pat Leahy convinced that Saddam was anywhere even in the realm of nuclear capability or that he was seriously considering handing over any form of weapons to Al Qaeda? I highly doubt it.

If Bush's justification for war was that Saddam Hussein still had some chemical and biological weapons laying around, there would've never been any war because that kind of threat doesn't come close to justifying the blood and treasure of a war. His argument was that Saddam was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons and that he was planning to supply weapons to Al Qaeda. Both of those claims were dubious at best even with the "evidence" presented and people knew at the time they were dubious.

[stevenleser]

78. You've highlighted the problem with the OP and those who agree with her. Revisionist history. They

claim it is us who are revising history, but when you look at even the Democrats who voted no, almost all of them thought that Saddam probably had WMD.

No one knew for sure one way or the other until the weapons inspectors went in and searched the sites, which they did as a result of IWR and UN Sec Res 1441.

On March 7, 2003, they issued their reports and said they did not find any WMD after searching all suspected sites. Bush went to war anyway less than two weeks later.

[Fumesucker]

4. Woooo hooooooo!!!11

[truedelphi]

13. Remember George the Elder's original Jan 1991 speech requesting we

Support a war against the people of Iraq? He lays out the evils of Saddam Hussein, and the fact that such a war will help ensure the "New World Order."

Since that speech, we continually see how our leaders believe that so many third world nations are "deserving" of military actions that smash them back to the stone age. These nations include Lebanon, as well as our need to really hammer the people of Iraq a second time around, the second time under George the Younger's (really Dick Cheney's) command.

Every time such a military action is undertaken, the NWO is strengthened again. You can call it globalization, if you wanna divorce it from the image of George Hw Bush.

And for those citizens of the world who can't be bombed, those "elected" politicians under the control of Globalization efforts make sure that we can be foreclosed, and we can watch our jobs and our children's jobs be outsourced, and we can stand by as fracking operations destroy the clean water, breathable air and healthy soil out from under us.

[ReRe]

21. Hear! Hear!

I remember GHWB's New World Order speech very well. I just couldn't understand what he meant by "New World Order." He forgot to define the term. It was like an edict. It stunk to high heaven to me.

Of course, now, with the passage of all these years, after the passage of those trade agreements that his adm started on (NAFTA and GATT), and after reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, I think I understand what he meant by "New World Order." Right down to the war on us, the American people, that you relate in your last paragraph.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Day of the vote I said "This one goes on your tombstone"...

I think I reflected the general consensus here.

[JEB]

18. complicit with a horrendous and pointless war.

Voting yes was shameful and in my book, it was inexcusable. Every Congress person who voted for the IWR is complicit with a horrendous and pointless war. "Out damned spot".

[AlbertCat]

36. Voting yes was shameful and in my book,

I agree.

We all knew it was bogus back then....so did they.


Besides, the Constitution clearly states who is responsible for declaring and going to war.... it ain't supposed to be the Prez.

[JEB]

19. "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."

[Maedhros]

20. What I find disingenuous

Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

is the argument that Democrats who voted for the war only did so because the (false) evidence presented by the White House appeared to be overwhelming.

Poppycock.

Millions of us who happened not to be in Congress were able to see through the bullshit easily enough. Claiming that the Democrats in Congress were duped by the Bush Administration only serves to make me think less of them.

(They weren't duped. They saw which way the winds were blowing and thought they'd go along to get along.)

[zeemike]

43. Yep that is how I see it too.

And there is reward for going along, and they got it.

[Enrique]

22. their votes enabled the war

and their speeches as I remember contained some big lies. And I agree that a handful of them did it because they wanted to become president.

But it should be remembered that after that vote, Bush still had to do a lot of selling of the war. The sixteen words in the SOTU, the Colin Powell presentation, a lot more. That tells me that the IWR didn't give Bush everything he needed to get his war.

[pocoloco]

31. The only thing I could figure out is that they

must of have had some inside information on there not being a Hell?

[tblue37]

27. This: + a brazillion. nt

[MisterP]

38. it reminds me of Iran-Contra: when Steadman Fagoth said 10,000 Miskito had been

beheaded or buried alive, the media "will assume that he is exaggerating, perhaps even wildly exaggerating, but they will not consider the possibility that what he is saying is totally untrue"

they believe all this (and, tellingly, do 180s as the conditions demand), but they're not trying to convince even themselves: they're there to poison the well: nothing they say about Snowden or Nader is ever true--but it keeps up the appearance that there can be some doubt

[reformist2]

39. They made a calculated bet that Iraq War II would go as smoothly as Iraq War I. How wrong they were!

Sadly, thousands of people paid the ultimate price for their ambition, and their supposed political acumen.

[bvar22]

42. ...but...but ...but Bush FOOLED them!!!

EVERYBODY knew Bush was Lying,
and EVERYBODY knew the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
WAS an authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.

Trying to use the Stupidity Defense is so much WORSE than saying
"Yes. I voted for the damned thing because I was more worried about MY reelection
than the thousands of people I was sentencing to death,
and now I regret it."

At least with THAT there is possibility for reformation and recovery.


But when somebody claims that they were so STUPID that George Bush Lied to them and FOOLED them!!???? WTF???.


[font=3]There is NO CURE for STUPID,
and claiming that Bush-the Lesser Fooled Them
is an admission of being unfit and unworthy to hold Public Office.[/font]

For several versions of the I am so stupid that Bush Fooled me Defense,
just look upthread. ^

[neverforget]

64. You and I and millions of others weren't fooled but the defense for falling for the neocon

war is "Bush fooled me!"

I called my Congressman and Senators, wrote letters to them and was out in the streets protesting because we knew it was all a lie. All one had to do was look at PNAC and those who were calling for war with Iraq. It wasn't difficult for me to get that but for some Democrats at the time, they had to take the "safe" vote for war to not look weak.

[H2O Man]

44. Way recommended.

They voted in support of the Bush-Cheney military aggression. And nothing less.

[blackspade]

45. K&R

Good points

[wiggs]

47. Congress had a second shot at making clear its intentions. You may remember that

the administration was required to submit evidence, findings, proof, etc to congress that Iraq posed an immediate threat and that Iraq could be tied to 9/11. The administration did submit a short letter...a very short letter....stating that Iraq was an immediate threat and that Iraq was tied to 9/11. No findings, no proof, no evidence. Just a statement. And congress (and the media) let it stand, just before the first strikes began.

RFK Jr wrote about it in Crimes Against Nature (IIRC).

It may have been reasonable to think that some 'yes' votes at the time were to give the administration the appearance of power and threat it needed to negotiate (as Hillary said it was at the time)....but there's no way anyone can think that the administration's response required by the resolution was adequate or meaningful. congress should have called it on that count.

And there are countless untruths that congress should have put a stop to. These were as obvious then as they are now, if our reps and leaders had been brave and responsible. OK...so they weren't brave and responsible. So they were acting within a calculated, cold political framework in which they didn't want to seem weak, didn't want to somehow end up on the wrong side of beating down a foe with different skin color and religion, didn't want to take a risk. So when it become clear this was a giant lie, a disaster, a mismanaged tragedy, and wrong...they could have pointed to the lies, the dishonest briefings about drones striking the US, curveball, forged documents, Judy Miller, Paul ONeill...dozens and dozens of mistakes and deceptions, making the administration and gop pay politically so that their brand would be ruined for generations. Certainly impeachment (gop gains the senate this year, think they won't impeach?). They didn't and haven't. Still could, but won't.

So...dem leaders and officials have had many chances to distance themselves from the worst foreign policy decision every....and haven't. Still complicit...most of them.

[Vattel]

62. Interesting, thx for the information

[mike_c]

48. none of them who voted to go to war with Iraq-- and that is exactly what they did...

...is fit to hold public office, IMO. That includes John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. I will never forgive that vote, as long as I live.

[sendero]

58. Nor I..

... political calculation at its worst, then squandered by Kerry in a ridiculously horrific campaign for the presidency in 2004. Selling out to the devil and then squandering the reward. Inexcusable.

[frwrfpos]

52. recommend

[redgreenandblue]

79. k&r