Two reasons they guys ALL have a good reason for their yea vote - they were lied to, they never approved torture. I don't recall that they goofed off for a full third of their terms in office either, ignoring important briefing information or failed to be current on material (essentially the Bush administration verged on criminal negligence along with their other criminal behavior).
Don't even get me started on the rest of the crimes laid at Dubya's doorstep, most notably not PAYING for the wars, cutting taxes to the rich, and exploding the national debt while failing to regulate the financial sector adequately.
First, each of the people you named were lied to, repeatedly. Second each was threatened with being called "weak on terror" if they'd hesitated even for a moment for the authorization of force, third, none of them imagined President Bush would abuse the authorization, ignore David Kay when he said he needed a "few more weeks at most" to avoid war and invade. President Bush FURTHER put people in charge like Tommy Franks and Ray Odierno, who didn't give a tinker's damn about collateral impacts. Fourth, President Bush's reaction when advised of the abuses at Abu Grhaib wasn't "how did this happen?" but instead to Donal Rumsfel was, "Why didn't you catch this (the photos) first?" The implication (clear implication) was NOT that Bush was upset about the conduct but rather that he was upset about the embarrasment/leak.
It's beyond assinine to blame the Dems for voting for a bill in which they were lied to, had no choice, and never intended would allow Bush to ignore the best advice of his generals, ignore the possibility to avoid war, and would allow him to prosecute a war that was needless. They trusted, as I'm sure YOU did too, that Bush would behave responsibly. If you want a prison named for Harry Reid, then using that measure I assume you wouldn't mind if one were also named for YOU.
Pen, no disrespect taken and no disrespect to you. But your comment is naive and proves my point on why we all need to start exploring third party candidates. "It's beyond assinine to blame the Dems for voting for a bill in which they were lied to" So, we as the general American public should accept the fact that we have hi gullibility in office? See, I don't believe that for a second. I don't buy it when DG tries telling me that as she has in the past. I feel it's naive to think so. "had no choice, and never intended would allow Bush to ignore the best advice of his generals, ignore the possibility to avoid war, and would allow him to prosecute a war that was needless." They did have a choice. They had the exact opposite choice, which is what 21 other Democratic Senators did, they voted nay. It is my opinion that the fine Senators I mentioned in my original comment had nothing more than their political gain in mind. Things go good, they voted yes like good Americans. Things go bad, they were lied to, and the country would need some immediate change. But who am I to hold my lawmakers accountable for how they vote? Oh that's right, I'm an American citizen with the right to vote. Personally, I hold all politicians accountable. Regardless of the letter in parenthesis after their name.
As for your other comments, I actually did not agree with invading Iraq, for numerous reasons. And naming a prison after me, I'm cool with that. JOB Correctional Facility has a nice ring to it, I think.
JOB, you choose to reject a reasonable assertion by the Dems that they did not have access to the same information that the president had, much less the access to foreign information which the president used to make his claim. Nor, as has been made clear from the subsequent testimony and investigation into Bush's "poodle" aka Tony Blair, Dubya had begun making plans to invade Iraq well before the events of 9/11 gave him a pretext, and it is clear from that testimony that the Bush administration was quite comfortable making up whatever lies were necessary.
Post 9/11 as occurred post-Pear Harbor, it is customary to unite behind a nation's leaders. That means trusting them to do what they are elected to do.
The members of Congress did their job, within the limits of information they were provided. They may have been reluctant to fully trust Dubya - hell, I remember at the time distrusting Dubya, stating that if he was lying, his name and legacy would be shit for the rest of history.
But to be skeptical is different than having proof Dubya and his puppet-master were lying; at some point you can ony act if you have the proof in your hands. There is NO indication to date that the Dems had that proof, at the time they voted. Lacking proof in hand they had to vote the way they did.
Now if you have proof they had that necessary evidence in hand to vote otherwise, rather than you just don't like the way they voted - please produce it.
I think the opening sentence of this post says it all:
"All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001."
and then goes on to provide the documents that I'm talking about.
Show me where Dems had that. Bush and Cheney had them. Dem's did not.
"Show me JOB where the people you list had any documents in hand with which to vote otherwise - you know, proof, fact, hard evidence." I guess you got me DG. I have no proof of what the Democratic Senators should have known. I guess that lets them off the hook. But what about Dick Durbin? He's my Senator here from Illinois. He was against this resolution from the beginning. In fact, On September 9 2002, Durbin was the first of four Democratic senators along with Bob Graham, Feinstein, and Levin on the Select Committee on Intelligence, responding to the Bush administration's request for a joint resolution authorizing a preemptive war on Iraq without having prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), to ask George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to prepare a NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD programs.
Did Durbin see something that Clinton, Biden, Edwards, and Reid did not? It would seem to me that the info was out there just waiting to be obtained. But some people relied on the word of the POTUS. Durbin also tried adding an Amendment to the resolution. It was shot down 70-30. Six of the nay votes came from the same Democratic Senators I mentioned above. Why is this in your opinion? Were Senators like Clinton and Biden just being good patriots? Just doing their job to the best of their abilities based on the info they were given? If so, answer this one question. When Durbin presented the NIE to the Senate, why did the Senators vote against his Amendment?
Let's also keep in mind, that it's been more than a decade since that vote. Since the Resolution passed the Senate floor. And to this day, Hillary Clinton is unapologetic for her vote. Thousands of US lives lost and countless horrific injuries. But she will still not admit that maybe she made a mistake. Please keep that in mind if she is the Democratic nominee in 2016.
I think when you start second guessing skepticism, rather than hard fact, you are in dangerous territory.
Unless you can show that any of the senators who voted as they did acted on fact rather than just speculation, you don't have grounds for the criticism you leveled.
Hilary Clinton has a valid defense - that Dubya lied his ass off.
I'm sorry, but in addition to DG's perfectly valid point, what you have asserted is either being said in bad faith (meaning you know better) or it is YOU who is showing naivete'.
Politicians, above all else, prefer to remain in their office. To pretend otherwise is foolish. The folks you named, with maybe one exception, were people who had seats which were far from secure in the looming 2004 elections. Consequently, they needed to show "support" for the President. It was BUSH who said "if you're not with us the, to a degree, you're against us" labeling dissenters as disloyal or weak. THEY, Bush and his cronies played strong-arm politics and they succeeded. You can pretend that the nation wouldn't have objected had people in Congress failed to support Bush's push for war, but that's niave' as well. Yes, there wee Democrats who voted against the resolution, but they were, in the main, from safe seats/districts.
You are putting the horse ahead of the cart here though and changing the subject. The blame here lies solely and squarely with an administration which hand-picked raw data, ignoring anything that didn't support their position, brow-beating dissenters, ignored the best intelligence advice, ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs, ignored their own Intelligence chief's comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was THEY not the Dems who did this, and to attempt to shift the blame elsewhere is utterly diisengenuious and irresponsible.
That said, you say you opposed this run-up. I believe you but may I ask, HOW did you oppose it? DId you argue with your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens against it? Did you hold Bush accountable and not vote for him in 2004. Did you vote against the war-mongering neo-cons in 2006? I DID argue against it. I confronted colleagues, friends and co-workers alike saying that Bush had required Hussein to disprove a negative, a logical impossibility, to avoid war and when he did (when Bush made this requirement as the requirement to avoid war) I knew beyond any doubt that Bush would not wait, didn't care about proof, and was going to go to war. I told my conservative friends this, I told my liberals as well, and virtually to a man, like the Dems in Congress, they said, "Maybe, but we can't afford to be wrong.. the President seems pretty certain and neither YOU nor I know what he knows." That was right, the only problem being, what we didn't know, was that he was lying.
In short then, and in summary, what you've done here is blame shifting. It's attempting to say everyone supported this conduct when most of the Dems didn't, they just didn't feel they had either enough evidence or much of a choice. What you've done is to create a flawed and false image and therefore to let those who truly WERE responsible for sinful conduct OFF THE HOOK. It may very not be what you intended, but it is what the oft repeated meme' of the right you are using here has done. If it isn't their/your intent, then I must reiterate you are naive' (to me), if it is your intent, then what you're preaching is nothing short of purposeful deceit and glaring obfuscation
"Politicians, above all else, prefer to remain in their office. To pretend otherwise is foolish. The folks you named, with maybe one exception, were people who had seats which were far from secure in the looming 2004 elections. Consequently, they needed to show "support" for the President." I'm sure you are correct Pen. Politicians would prefer to stay in office. But their job is NOT keeping their job. They are there for one reason only. To represent the people that elected them. Are you admitting that the Senators I mention up top may have voted against the best interests of this country in order to win reelection, or am I missing something?
"Yes, there wee Democrats who voted against the resolution, but they were, in the main, from safe seats/districts." I am sorry Pen, but you are wrong on one thing. Senator Durbin, who I talked about in my reply to DG above, was running for reelection that very year, 2002. And I know that Democrats usually win in Illinois, but his seat was not safe. Chicago is highly Democratic, but he had the rest of the state to answer to. I remember he caught a lot of heat too. Man, people here were all over him. But yet, he remained poised. He stood by his convictions and remembered what his job was. To represent the people that elected him. I for one though he did a great job.
"You are putting the horse ahead of the cart here though and changing the subject. The blame here lies solely and squarely with an administration which hand-picked raw data, ignoring anything that didn't support their position, brow-beating dissenters, ignored the best intelligence advice, ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs, ignored their own Intelligence chief's comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was THEY not the Dems who did this, and to attempt to shift the blame elsewhere is utterly diisengenuious and irresponsible." That is not true. I touched base with it in my reply to DG. Information was out there, and some Senators were trying to obtain it. Others were trying to keep their job. That last sentence was my opinion, I have no proof or hard evidence. ;-) (For you DG) I would say that the majority of blame lies with the Bush Administration. But I wouldn't say all of it.
"That said, you say you opposed this run-up. I believe you but may I ask, HOW did you oppose it? DId you argue with your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens against it? Did you hold Bush accountable and not vote for him in 2004. Did you vote against the war-mongering neo-cons in 2006? I DID argue against it. I confronted colleagues, friends and co-workers alike saying that Bush had required Hussein to disprove a negative, a logical impossibility, to avoid war and when he did (when Bush made this requirement as the requirement to avoid war) I knew beyond any doubt that Bush would not wait, didn't care about proof, and was going to go to war. I told my conservative friends this, I told my liberals as well, and virtually to a man, like the Dems in Congress, they said, "Maybe, but we can't afford to be wrong.. the President seems pretty certain and neither YOU nor I know what he knows." That was right, the only problem being, what we didn't know, was that he was lying." I actually attended Durbin's anti-war rally in '02. I discussed the possibility of war with many coworkers at Union meetings. I didn't argue with neighbors too much. And what you stated about not affording to be wrong was the exact thing I heard. Now I will jump into the fire with you and DG. I DID vote for Bush in '04. Sounds f##ked up, right? Before you or Dog jump down my throat, let me explain. At the time, I did not have the computer access that I enjoy today. I have an awful memory, but for some reason I did not like Kerry. I remember being very disappointed that he received the nod. So, I basically voted for the worst of two evils, based on the info at the time. Mainly CNN and the Sun-Times. If I had to do it all over again, That would have been the year that I got more involved with independent politics. But I can't take it back. At least I'm honest though. Do I get points for that? I voted for the Independent in my '06 Congressional district. Jesse Jackson Jr. was of course reelected.
"In short then, and in summary, what you've done here is blame shifting. It's attempting to say everyone supported this conduct when most of the Dems didn't, they just didn't feel they had either enough evidence or much of a choice. What you've done is to create a flawed and false image and therefore to let those who truly WERE responsible for sinful conduct OFF THE HOOK. It may very not be what you intended, but it is what the oft repeated meme' of the right you are using here has done. If it isn't their/your intent, then I must reiterate you are naive' (to me), if it is your intent, then what you're preaching is nothing short of purposeful deceit and glaring obfuscation" I am not attempting to shift blame at all. The President and Vice President should definitely be held accountable. The issue I have with this blog, other blogs, and people I talk to in regards to this war, is that Congress SHOULD accept some accountability. Reports were called for. My own Senator did just that. And when Durbin received the reports he asked for, he attempted to amend the resolution, limiting quite a bit of the President Bush's power in Iraq. That Amendment was shot down. Some of the nay votes came from the very same Senators that I mentioned above. In the end, I feel that you are being naive, and you feel I am being naive. So, with much respect to the blog that you and Dog Gone run (Which I do love reading), we will just have to agree to disagree.
In closing, I would like to mention one more thing. Believe it or not, Rand Paul (Yes, that Rand Paul) attempted to put an official end to the war in Iraq back in 2011. That was the last time any Senator tried to repeal Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The effort failed 67-30. Out of the 30 yea votes, 4 of them were Republican. That number almost shocks me. But what's most shocking is the nay votes. 24 out of the 67 were Democrats. But there are two that were the most shocking. That would be one Senator Reid (Who you mentioned in a reply), and one Senator Kerry (Looks like not voting for him in '04 may have been a good decision). One question I have for you Pen. In your opinion, why would these two Senators not want to repeal this Act? Were they still trying to remain in office? Are they so egotistical that they do not want to admit they were wrong, which may be the case with Hillary as well? Or, do they really believe our presence in Iraq, past and future, is what's best for this country?
Good point DG. I would like to add some names that do not appear in your post. They all voted in favor of H.J.Res 114.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton
Joseph Biden
Diane Feinstein
John Edwards
Joseph liebermann
Harry Reid
I guess there's a good excuse for their yea vote though? Since they are such champions of the working class, peace, love, harmony, and the like.
Two reasons they guys ALL have a good reason for their yea vote - they were lied to, they never approved torture. I don't recall that they goofed off for a full third of their terms in office either, ignoring important briefing information or failed to be current on material (essentially the Bush administration verged on criminal negligence along with their other criminal behavior).
DeleteDon't even get me started on the rest of the crimes laid at Dubya's doorstep, most notably not PAYING for the wars, cutting taxes to the rich, and exploding the national debt while failing to regulate the financial sector adequately.
JOB,
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect, but your comment is laughable.
First, each of the people you named were lied to, repeatedly. Second each was threatened with being called "weak on terror" if they'd hesitated even for a moment for the authorization of force, third, none of them imagined President Bush would abuse the authorization, ignore David Kay when he said he needed a "few more weeks at most" to avoid war and invade. President Bush FURTHER put people in charge like Tommy Franks and Ray Odierno, who didn't give a tinker's damn about collateral impacts. Fourth, President Bush's reaction when advised of the abuses at Abu Grhaib wasn't "how did this happen?" but instead to Donal Rumsfel was, "Why didn't you catch this (the photos) first?" The implication (clear implication) was NOT that Bush was upset about the conduct but rather that he was upset about the embarrasment/leak.
It's beyond assinine to blame the Dems for voting for a bill in which they were lied to, had no choice, and never intended would allow Bush to ignore the best advice of his generals, ignore the possibility to avoid war, and would allow him to prosecute a war that was needless. They trusted, as I'm sure YOU did too, that Bush would behave responsibly. If you want a prison named for Harry Reid, then using that measure I assume you wouldn't mind if one were also named for YOU.
Pen, no disrespect taken and no disrespect to you. But your comment is naive and proves my point on why we all need to start exploring third party candidates.
Delete"It's beyond assinine to blame the Dems for voting for a bill in which they were lied to"
So, we as the general American public should accept the fact that we have hi gullibility in office? See, I don't believe that for a second. I don't buy it when DG tries telling me that as she has in the past. I feel it's naive to think so.
"had no choice, and never intended would allow Bush to ignore the best advice of his generals, ignore the possibility to avoid war, and would allow him to prosecute a war that was needless."
They did have a choice. They had the exact opposite choice, which is what 21 other Democratic Senators did, they voted nay. It is my opinion that the fine Senators I mentioned in my original comment had nothing more than their political gain in mind. Things go good, they voted yes like good Americans. Things go bad, they were lied to, and the country would need some immediate change. But who am I to hold my lawmakers accountable for how they vote?
Oh that's right, I'm an American citizen with the right to vote. Personally, I hold all politicians accountable. Regardless of the letter in parenthesis after their name.
As for your other comments, I actually did not agree with invading Iraq, for numerous reasons. And naming a prison after me, I'm cool with that. JOB Correctional Facility has a nice ring to it, I think.
JOB, you choose to reject a reasonable assertion by the Dems that they did not have access to the same information that the president had, much less the access to foreign information which the president used to make his claim. Nor, as has been made clear from the subsequent testimony and investigation into Bush's "poodle" aka Tony Blair, Dubya had begun making plans to invade Iraq well before the events of 9/11 gave him a pretext, and it is clear from that testimony that the Bush administration was quite comfortable making up whatever lies were necessary.
ReplyDeletePost 9/11 as occurred post-Pear Harbor, it is customary to unite behind a nation's leaders. That means trusting them to do what they are elected to do.
The members of Congress did their job, within the limits of information they were provided. They may have been reluctant to fully trust Dubya - hell, I remember at the time distrusting Dubya, stating that if he was lying, his name and legacy would be shit for the rest of history.
But to be skeptical is different than having proof Dubya and his puppet-master were lying; at some point you can ony act if you have the proof in your hands. There is NO indication to date that the Dems had that proof, at the time they voted. Lacking proof in hand they had to vote the way they did.
Now if you have proof they had that necessary evidence in hand to vote otherwise, rather than you just don't like the way they voted - please produce it.
If not, you fail to make your point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2721513.stm
ReplyDeletehttp://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/03winter/wither.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Show me JOB where the people you list had any documents in hand with which to vote otherwise - you know, proof, fact, hard evidence.
Otherwise, you have no valid justification for your arguments.
I think the opening sentence of this post says it all:
ReplyDelete"All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001."
and then goes on to provide the documents that I'm talking about.
Show me where Dems had that. Bush and Cheney had them. Dem's did not.
That is the difference.
"Show me JOB where the people you list had any documents in hand with which to vote otherwise - you know, proof, fact, hard evidence."
DeleteI guess you got me DG. I have no proof of what the Democratic Senators should have known. I guess that lets them off the hook. But what about Dick Durbin? He's my Senator here from Illinois. He was against this resolution from the beginning. In fact, On September 9 2002, Durbin was the first of four Democratic senators along with Bob Graham, Feinstein, and Levin on the Select Committee on Intelligence, responding to the Bush administration's request for a joint resolution authorizing a preemptive war on Iraq without having prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), to ask George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to prepare a NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD programs.
Did Durbin see something that Clinton, Biden, Edwards, and Reid did not? It would seem to me that the info was out there just waiting to be obtained. But some people relied on the word of the POTUS. Durbin also tried adding an Amendment to the resolution. It was shot down 70-30. Six of the nay votes came from the same Democratic Senators I mentioned above. Why is this in your opinion? Were Senators like Clinton and Biden just being good patriots? Just doing their job to the best of their abilities based on the info they were given? If so, answer this one question. When Durbin presented the NIE to the Senate, why did the Senators vote against his Amendment?
Let's also keep in mind, that it's been more than a decade since that vote. Since the Resolution passed the Senate floor. And to this day, Hillary Clinton is unapologetic for her vote. Thousands of US lives lost and countless horrific injuries. But she will still not admit that maybe she made a mistake. Please keep that in mind if she is the Democratic nominee in 2016.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Durbin
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/index.html?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
I think when you start second guessing skepticism, rather than hard fact, you are in dangerous territory.
DeleteUnless you can show that any of the senators who voted as they did acted on fact rather than just speculation, you don't have grounds for the criticism you leveled.
Hilary Clinton has a valid defense - that Dubya lied his ass off.
Do you have a link DG where Hillary plays the political victim claiming that her Iraq Resolution vote was misguided due to lies?
DeleteJOB,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but in addition to DG's perfectly valid point, what you have asserted is either being said in bad faith (meaning you know better) or it is YOU who is showing naivete'.
Politicians, above all else, prefer to remain in their office. To pretend otherwise is foolish. The folks you named, with maybe one exception, were people who had seats which were far from secure in the looming 2004 elections. Consequently, they needed to show "support" for the President. It was BUSH who said "if you're not with us the, to a degree, you're against us" labeling dissenters as disloyal or weak. THEY, Bush and his cronies played strong-arm politics and they succeeded. You can pretend that the nation wouldn't have objected had people in Congress failed to support Bush's push for war, but that's niave' as well. Yes, there wee Democrats who voted against the resolution, but they were, in the main, from safe seats/districts.
You are putting the horse ahead of the cart here though and changing the subject. The blame here lies solely and squarely with an administration which hand-picked raw data, ignoring anything that didn't support their position, brow-beating dissenters, ignored the best intelligence advice, ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs, ignored their own Intelligence chief's comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was THEY not the Dems who did this, and to attempt to shift the blame elsewhere is utterly diisengenuious and irresponsible.
That said, you say you opposed this run-up. I believe you but may I ask, HOW did you oppose it? DId you argue with your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens against it? Did you hold Bush accountable and not vote for him in 2004. Did you vote against the war-mongering neo-cons in 2006? I DID argue against it. I confronted colleagues, friends and co-workers alike saying that Bush had required Hussein to disprove a negative, a logical impossibility, to avoid war and when he did (when Bush made this requirement as the requirement to avoid war) I knew beyond any doubt that Bush would not wait, didn't care about proof, and was going to go to war. I told my conservative friends this, I told my liberals as well, and virtually to a man, like the Dems in Congress, they said, "Maybe, but we can't afford to be wrong.. the President seems pretty certain and neither YOU nor I know what he knows." That was right, the only problem being, what we didn't know, was that he was lying.
In short then, and in summary, what you've done here is blame shifting. It's attempting to say everyone supported this conduct when most of the Dems didn't, they just didn't feel they had either enough evidence or much of a choice. What you've done is to create a flawed and false image and therefore to let those who truly WERE responsible for sinful conduct OFF THE HOOK. It may very not be what you intended, but it is what the oft repeated meme' of the right you are using here has done. If it isn't their/your intent, then I must reiterate you are naive' (to me), if it is your intent, then what you're preaching is nothing short of purposeful deceit and glaring obfuscation
"Politicians, above all else, prefer to remain in their office. To pretend otherwise is foolish. The folks you named, with maybe one exception, were people who had seats which were far from secure in the looming 2004 elections. Consequently, they needed to show "support" for the President."
DeleteI'm sure you are correct Pen. Politicians would prefer to stay in office. But their job is NOT keeping their job. They are there for one reason only. To represent the people that elected them. Are you admitting that the Senators I mention up top may have voted against the best interests of this country in order to win reelection, or am I missing something?
"Yes, there wee Democrats who voted against the resolution, but they were, in the main, from safe seats/districts."
I am sorry Pen, but you are wrong on one thing. Senator Durbin, who I talked about in my reply to DG above, was running for reelection that very year, 2002. And I know that Democrats usually win in Illinois, but his seat was not safe. Chicago is highly Democratic, but he had the rest of the state to answer to. I remember he caught a lot of heat too. Man, people here were all over him. But yet, he remained poised. He stood by his convictions and remembered what his job was. To represent the people that elected him. I for one though he did a great job.
"You are putting the horse ahead of the cart here though and changing the subject. The blame here lies solely and squarely with an administration which hand-picked raw data, ignoring anything that didn't support their position, brow-beating dissenters, ignored the best intelligence advice, ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs, ignored their own Intelligence chief's comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was THEY not the Dems who did this, and to attempt to shift the blame elsewhere is utterly diisengenuious and irresponsible."
That is not true. I touched base with it in my reply to DG. Information was out there, and some Senators were trying to obtain it. Others were trying to keep their job. That last sentence was my opinion, I have no proof or hard evidence. ;-) (For you DG)
I would say that the majority of blame lies with the Bush Administration. But I wouldn't say all of it.
"That said, you say you opposed this run-up. I believe you but may I ask, HOW did you oppose it? DId you argue with your neighbors, co-workers, fellow citizens against it? Did you hold Bush accountable and not vote for him in 2004. Did you vote against the war-mongering neo-cons in 2006? I DID argue against it. I confronted colleagues, friends and co-workers alike saying that Bush had required Hussein to disprove a negative, a logical impossibility, to avoid war and when he did (when Bush made this requirement as the requirement to avoid war) I knew beyond any doubt that Bush would not wait, didn't care about proof, and was going to go to war. I told my conservative friends this, I told my liberals as well, and virtually to a man, like the Dems in Congress, they said, "Maybe, but we can't afford to be wrong.. the President seems pretty certain and neither YOU nor I know what he knows." That was right, the only problem being, what we didn't know, was that he was lying."
DeleteI actually attended Durbin's anti-war rally in '02. I discussed the possibility of war with many coworkers at Union meetings. I didn't argue with neighbors too much. And what you stated about not affording to be wrong was the exact thing I heard.
Now I will jump into the fire with you and DG. I DID vote for Bush in '04. Sounds f##ked up, right? Before you or Dog jump down my throat, let me explain. At the time, I did not have the computer access that I enjoy today. I have an awful memory, but for some reason I did not like Kerry. I remember being very disappointed that he received the nod. So, I basically voted for the worst of two evils, based on the info at the time. Mainly CNN and the Sun-Times. If I had to do it all over again, That would have been the year that I got more involved with independent politics. But I can't take it back. At least I'm honest though. Do I get points for that? I voted for the Independent in my '06 Congressional district. Jesse Jackson Jr. was of course reelected.
"In short then, and in summary, what you've done here is blame shifting. It's attempting to say everyone supported this conduct when most of the Dems didn't, they just didn't feel they had either enough evidence or much of a choice. What you've done is to create a flawed and false image and therefore to let those who truly WERE responsible for sinful conduct OFF THE HOOK. It may very not be what you intended, but it is what the oft repeated meme' of the right you are using here has done. If it isn't their/your intent, then I must reiterate you are naive' (to me), if it is your intent, then what you're preaching is nothing short of purposeful deceit and glaring obfuscation"
DeleteI am not attempting to shift blame at all. The President and Vice President should definitely be held accountable. The issue I have with this blog, other blogs, and people I talk to in regards to this war, is that Congress SHOULD accept some accountability. Reports were called for. My own Senator did just that. And when Durbin received the reports he asked for, he attempted to amend the resolution, limiting quite a bit of the President Bush's power in Iraq. That Amendment was shot down. Some of the nay votes came from the very same Senators that I mentioned above. In the end, I feel that you are being naive, and you feel I am being naive. So, with much respect to the blog that you and Dog Gone run (Which I do love reading), we will just have to agree to disagree.
In closing, I would like to mention one more thing. Believe it or not, Rand Paul (Yes, that Rand Paul) attempted to put an official end to the war in Iraq back in 2011. That was the last time any Senator tried to repeal Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The effort failed 67-30. Out of the 30 yea votes, 4 of them were Republican. That number almost shocks me. But what's most shocking is the nay votes. 24 out of the 67 were Democrats. But there are two that were the most shocking. That would be one Senator Reid (Who you mentioned in a reply), and one Senator Kerry (Looks like not voting for him in '04 may have been a good decision). One question I have for you Pen. In your opinion, why would these two Senators not want to repeal this Act? Were they still trying to remain in office? Are they so egotistical that they do not want to admit they were wrong, which may be the case with Hillary as well? Or, do they really believe our presence in Iraq, past and future, is what's best for this country?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/zombie-iraq-war-why-havent-we-repealed-the-authorization-to-fight-there/276315/
Delete