U Are Unworthy to be Prez if U supported Iraq War At Any Time

[Pierzin]

Why do I say this? Because while we are all focusing on ways to get out of Iraq, W and his cronies have shredded the Constitution, and GOP lawmakers will try anything to obfuscate and delay efforts to get our troops out.
What happens in Iraq once the US occupiers leave? Does anyone really think the factions will get along once the US devils leave? What will happen then? No other nations have volunteered to attempt to keep the peace, and we see violence every day.
I just read this over at Common Dreams, and give credit to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, for publishing the article.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0205-23.htm

The US lawmakers who voted for the Iraq War launched a war of aggression, while there was plenty of evidence that Iraq could not possibly threaten the US, and while the UN inspectors said they had no weapons capable of attacking the US. And yet some of our shift-in -the wind leaders beleived a bunch of former oil and energy execs over the UN inspectors.
Everyone knew that if the US went to Iraq it would be a quagmire. Whether we like it or not, US forces may be forced to return to Iraq if the chaos spills over into other countries. Thus, W may have launched a generational war which could have worldwide ripple effects. Presently, there are no effects, but that could change anytime. Scared yet?
Do we really want anyone who twisted in the wind to vote for this authorization to be president if we have to institute a draft in five to ten years? Is anyone who did not ask all the tough questions necessary to send our troops off against an imagined threat really worthy to be our next president???
(this includes Hillary, and Edwards, and anyone else who voted for that ill fated measure)
If Iraq does turn into a bigger mess, if other countries in the region get embroiled into conflict with each other, God forbid it does not happen, but you see where this could go? It is, as others have feared, a nightmare waiting to happen.
That is why I say, no to Hillary, no to Edwards, no to anyone who walked lock step in post 9-11 fear of public opinion.
Who cares about if you knew then what you know now, you as Mike Malloy said tonight, "you did something that could hurt the tribe, so we are tossing you out." - and he was only talking about the non-binding resolution to get us out of Iraq.:scared: :scared: :scared: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Skittles]

1. I agree with this assessment

my feeling is, if *I* knew it was all a pile of sh**, why didn't THEY know? And if they did know and voted for it anyways, well, that is worse. I'm completely disgusted by ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR IWR.

[Erika]

3. Agreed Skittles 100% n/t

No one is going to be voting for war.

[Lone_Wolf]

23. I agree

If suspected it was a lie with the limited information I had, they should have KNOWN with the information they had.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Is there anyone who you support for president? I agree that the yes was

reckless. I keep asking why did some vote yes and some vote no if they had the same information? I can only feel they were concerned more about how it looked. Afraid to look wimpy or unpatriotic rather than vote for what was wrong.
I may be wrong but, I cannot understand why. My senator, Durbin, voted no because the info did not add up to a threat.

[Lautremont]

4. I also agree.

I felt at the time, as so many average folks did, that the whole thing was bogus from the start. It didn't take a super genius. I realize that they were voting not to start a war, but to give ol' shrubbsy the power to start a war. Some have been harping on this distinction. I say feh.

Some may also say that, well, I and other folks were out of range of the constant razzle-dazzle propaganda - if I wanted to shut up the shrub or his minions, all I had to do was turn off my TV, whereas Clinton, Edwards and whomever else had to sit around and listen to it day in and day out. This is true. But if they fall for such razzle-dazzle, no matter how obnoxiously presented, that doesn't raise my assessment of them.

[saltpoint]

5. Lincoln's position on slavery evolved. The fluid, instinctive, and

evolutionary consciousness appears to be far better suited to problem-solving than a rigid, "I was this way from the beginnng" posture, no matter the issue.

I'll take any man or woman willing to learn from the past. It's the ones who refuse who frighten me.

Theodore Roosevelt said, "...a devil masters each of us (but) it is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it that counts.”

I stand with Teddy on this one.

[pocoloco]

6. Oh Hell Yeah!!

Let's give * one more chance too. You reckon he'll evolve??

Sometimes this place amazes me.

[saltpoint]

8. I mention better Republicans than Bush in my post. You missed the

point by a wide margin.

[AlGore-08.com]

10. The difference is that Lincoln's position on slavery lead public opinion, it'd didn't follow it

Lincoln only won 39.8% of the popular vote in 1860. And the Republican platform of 1860 did not promise to abolish slavery, only keep it from spreading to new states and territories. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't a law enacted by Congress - - it was an Executive Order signed by Lincoln, and extremely controversial.

The problem with the folks who voted for the IWR and have since apologized is that there's no way of seeing into their hearts. They may have voted for the IWR and apologized only because they were following public opinion. Or they may have, as you posit, have learned from their mistake. However, there's very little evidence that they have learned from their experience - - you're taking it on faith that they've learned how to distinguish a good military idea from a disastrous military idea, that they've learned to tell when to trust people and when to distrust them.

Given the many huge problems facing the world - - like we've got about 10 years max to reverse global warming or all life on earth is wiped out - - IMNSHO it's not a good idea to entrust the Presidency to somebody who may still be as clueless and/or incompetent and/or politically craven as they were when they voted for the IWR.

[saltpoint]

11. I understand the distinction you are making, but seeing into Lincoln's

heart was by no means a transparent experience in the United States in the 1860s.

History is not a linear trajectory, but a dodge-em car ride in Time's amusement park. Variables clang and bang into each other without much warning and the new positions of all riders require adaptation.

A rigid position -- even one we agree with -- is less useful and finally more prone to failure. If I'm hiring a CEO for a large non-profit, I want the most adaptable man or woman I can find, not some turgid oak who boasts of "consistency." The natural world is full of flux and subatomic uncertainties; I feel History is the same.

Lincoln's evolution on any number of things evokes his own healthy obsession with language. The difference between great presidents and caretaker presidents, seems to me, has to do with language-driven self-direction versus rigid adherence to some orthodoxy.

[Milo_Bloom]

7. Couldn't.... Agree... More!

[ShortnFiery]

12. Yes, I second that thought. n/t

[snowbear]

9. Agree --- they are unworthy of our votes..

Candidates -->

Clark .... Obama .... Richardson .... <------are worthy!

[atre]

13. Then the only candidates you can legitimately support are Kucinich and Obama

Clark publicly expressed ambivalence about the IWR - saying at one point that he would've voted for it. The only two who have been consistent and unwavering in their opposition to the war are Kucinich and Obama... Which is your candidate?

[Adelante]

16. Not the IWR

Clark was lobbying for the Levin amendment which would have called for a second debate and vote after the UN. He entirely opposed the IWR.

[pampango]

21. Feingold? Otherwise, you are right - Kucinich and others who

were not in the Senate to cast a recorded vote then.

[Faux pas]

14. Umm, who does that leave for our choices? The janitor maybe?

Seriously, need to see a list of the war supporters.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

15. I agree.

These senators did NOT believe the U.N. weapons inspectors, and instead believed the lies the Bush administration was putting out, and still voted for a war??

And I guess the Bush admin couldn't get in to plant some WMDs.

I'd believe the U.N. Weapons Inspectors before I'd believe anything Bush said. Or all that "faulty intelligence" proven to be manufactured, from the Downing Street Memo.

[Pachamama]

17. Completely Agree...

Sorry Edwards....

But for me, the choice would be Obama, Clark, Kucinich et al..

No Hillary...

[OneBlueSky]

18. I agree . . . if they did it once, who's to say they won't do it again? . . . n/t

[pampango]

19. Does that leave us with Feingold, Kucinich, and anyone who

was not in Congress at the time, so we'll never know how they would have voted for sure? I am relatively new here, so I may be missing some candidates who did vote against the IWR.

After 2004 there was some sentiment that Senators make bad presidential candidates, because they have to take positions and vote on too many issues. Better to have someone who does not have a voting history that can be used against them. We can all find votes that any candidate has taken that we disagree with, be it IWR, Bankruptcy Bill, NAFTA, against cloture on SC nominees, or any number of a thousand other bills that come up.

[Apollo11]

20. What Al Gore said in 2002

Al Gore's speech to the Commonwealth Club on 23 September 2002 was "nuanced".

But he did make clear that adopting a policy of "preventive war" would isolate the US and thereby weaken America's ability to defeat the terrorist threat presented by Al Quaida.

It is worth reading his whole speech. Here is the conclusion, followed by a link:

It is reasonable to conclude that we face a very serious problem in Iraq. But is a general doctrine of preemption based on a theory that would overturn the international law and the structure that has existed since our victory in WWII -- is that necessary? No. I believe not.

Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat to the United States? And if he did, would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which reserves to states the right to act in self-defense. If he does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate an immediate confrontation, to find a cause for war and to launch an attack? (...)

To the extent that we have any concern about international support, whether for its political or material value or for its necessity in winning the war against terrorism, hurrying the process could be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our core principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for. We should have as our top priority preserving what America represents and stands for in the world and winning the war against terrorism first.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition! :)
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

:kick:

[robinlynne]

22. yep. we all knew it was a lie.