OK, so imagine this scenario:

[Jackpine Radical]

You are a Dem senator. It is 2002. You think the Bushies are probably lying about the necessity for war, but you figure it's gonna happen regardless of what you do. Besides, Iraq has no military power of significance, so it may very well be a cakewalk all the way to Baghdad. You remember what happened to those few Dems who opposed GW I: They were destroyed in the '92 elections. Only the pro-war Dems survived. Now, you figure you can be a purist and vote your ethics--and likely go down to defeat n your next election. Or you can suck it up, vote with the majority to give the President war powers, and live to fight again another day, when maybe the odds will be more in your favor. What's your choice? A noble flameout or an ignoble act that increases the probability of your political survival?

Which is better? To vote your conscience and (you really believe) give the Republicans your Senate seat, or do something you'll hate yourself for and keep that seat out of their hands?

This scenario is of course entirely hypothetical and has no bearing on any real situation anyone anywhere may have ever faced.

I invite your comments.

[Joanne98]

1. I've never had an issue with the war vote...

Everybody got steamrolled. My issue with Clinton is her stance on globalization...

[Katherine Brengle]

2. Good question.

I have no idea... if I thought Iraq II would go the way the Gulf did, I would probably vote for it and hold onto my seat...

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I think we assumed it would go that way.

I know I did, although I figured it could get pretty messy with house-to-house fighting.

One thing I knew for sure is there were no usable WMD, and Bush had to know it too. Otherwise he wouldn't have sent all those troops on that long march to Baghdad, where they were so terribly exposed to whatever Saddam might have wanted to use on them.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. If losing is winning , God bless the loser.

Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and the re-puker with conviction.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

4. I for one would like a better world.

That means voting your ethics and conscience every vote possible.

[sweetheart]

6. You've got a research staff

Who've informed you that 9/11 was an inside job, and you present this on the senate floor demanding
that the administration be impeached immediately for mass murder. On top of that, you certainly
don't vote them any war powers.

[PhilipShore]

7. Drop out

The chances of Congress changing are basically none, Drop out. The people have more power then the politicians.

[Porcupine]

8. Hillary was still a jerk for the pro-war vote. Edwards too.

Others in the Senate democratic side voted against the war with full documentation. Wellstone is the example I can think of off the top of my head.

United States Senators have obligations that are more important than the next election. Staying out of wars is probably #1 on that list. If they cannot understand that then they should find a job in the corporate world.

[peacebird]

9. "United States Senators have obligations that are more important than the next election" BINGO!

:toast:

[frogcycle]

10. the other mitigating factor is

something some of them hint at but don't really state clearly. They did not vote for this war.

They authorized the president to use force if necessary to deal with the imminent threat of WMD. Period. That the bill they voted on was worded full of loopholes (not as many as the admin wanted though) may not have seemed as crucial then as it would now. Despite having political differences with bush, many had not yet had demonstrated how duplicitous he and his henchmen are. So they were gullible. Hindsight can say they were asleep at the switch and shame on them for not being better watchdogs as our constitution was being hijacked. But they did not knowingly, intentionally, vote in favor of a three-year pseudo-occupation of a country with an unfriendly government. They did not vote "for the war" and then change their minds. That point should be made over and over. Bush acted outside the spirit of the authorization. Any criticism that can be leveled at them for giving him that opportunity is much stronger criticism at him for taking it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. You are a Dem Senator

you ignore the massive numbers of emails against the war that are flooding your office. You ignore the anti-war protests going on across your state. You care only for your job, so you vote for the war. You keep your Senate seat in the next election. You care only about yourself, and not about your constituents, whom you ignore.

This is what happened in my state. Just sayin'.

[Individualist]

12. Integrity vs. aiding and abetting neocons

And you ask which is better? :eyes:

[MadHound]

13. Well, first of all, I would listen to my constituents. That is, after all, job one

In our governmental system. At the time of the IWR, 68% of the population wasn't wanting anything done, including passing the IWR, until the inspectors finished their job. At the time of the vote, constituent messages against the IWR were running 268-1 against the IWR. MIllions of people around the country and around the world were screaming NO to the IWR.

Then I would weigh two things on the scales of my conscience, my future political career vs the lives of tens of thousands of innocents(and yes, that was the best guess count at the time for possible Iraqi casualties.) Sorry, but I have a very strong conscience, and I would not sacrifice those innocent lives on the altar of my political career.

Sadly, many of our so called leaders did exactly that, and have continued to do so even after it became painfully obvious what a sham this war was.

This isn't nor was it some intellectual exercise in a poli sci class. This involved issues of life and death, and sadly, many of our leaders chose poorly.

[necklace]

14. Sometimes Courage is the Toughest Thing To Do!!!

I can understand wanting to appease the constituency for the purpose of re-election, but when something is blatantly wrong one needs to take a stand.

It takes an enormous amount of courage to go against the tidal wave of the majority, and one must risk everything - including one's life - to do so.

The Late President Ford did so in pardoning Nixon. He did it for the sake of the nation, so that the healing could begin.