Skip to main content

View Diary: DailyKos supporting Right Wing Talking Points?? (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Kudos to all who voted NAY (4.00)
    U.S. Senate
    NAYs ---23

    Akaka (D-HI)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Chafee (R-RI)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Corzine (D-NJ)
    Dayton (D-MN)
     Durbin (D-IL)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Graham (D-FL)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Jeffords (I-VT)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
     Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Wellstone (D-MN)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    U.S. House
    ---- NAYS    133 ---

    Abercrombie
    Allen
    Baca
    Baird
    Baldacci
    Baldwin
    Barrett
    Becerra
    Blumenauer
    Bonior
    Brady (PA)
    Brown (FL)
    Brown (OH)
    Capps
    Capuano
    Cardin
    Carson (IN)
    Clay
    Clayton
    Clyburn
    Condit
    Conyers
    Costello
    Coyne
    Cummings
    Davis (CA)
    Davis (IL)
    DeFazio
    DeGette
    Delahunt
    DeLauro
    Dingell
    Doggett
    Doyle
    Duncan
    Eshoo
    Evans
    Farr
    Fattah
    Filner
    Frank
    Gonzalez
    Gutierrez
    Hastings (FL)
    Hilliard
     Hinchey
    Hinojosa
    Holt
    Honda
    Hooley
    Hostettler
    Houghton
    Inslee
    Jackson (IL)
    Jackson-Lee (TX)
    Johnson, E. B.
    Jones (OH)
    Kaptur
    Kildee
    Kilpatrick
    Kleczka
    Kucinich
    LaFalce
    Langevin
    Larsen (WA)
    Larson (CT)
    Leach
    Lee
    Levin
    Lewis (GA)
    Lipinski
    Lofgren
    Maloney (CT)
    Matsui
    McCarthy (MO)
    McCollum
    McDermott
    McGovern
    McKinney
    Meek (FL)
    Meeks (NY)
    Menendez
    Millender-McDonald
    Miller, George
    Mollohan
    Moran (VA)
    Morella
    Nadler
    Napolitano
    Neal
     Oberstar
    Obey
    Olver
    Owens
    Pallone
    Pastor
    Paul
    Payne
    Pelosi
    Price (NC)
    Rahall
    Rangel
    Reyes
    Rivers
    Rodriguez
    Roybal-Allard
    Rush
    Sabo
    Sanchez
    Sanders
    Sawyer
    Schakowsky
    Scott
    Serrano
    Slaughter
    Snyder
    Solis
    Stark
    Strickland
    Stupak
    Thompson (CA)
    Thompson (MS)
    Tierney
    Towns
    Udall (CO)
    Udall (NM)
    Velazquez
    Visclosky
    Waters
    Watson (CA)
    Watt (NC)
    Woolsey
    Wu

    Do your part for world peace - visit Iraqi Blog Count and interact!

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:28:56 PM PST

    •  yes. (none)
      they voted not to give authority to the president.

      again.

      saying a vote on IWR was not a vote for war is not an endorsement of a "yes" vote.  it's a debunking of the right wing talking point.

      all it says is those who voted "yes" voted to give bush authority.  they did not vote for war.

      "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

      by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:32:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  how about you give the 25% some props b.c.? (4.00)
        they were pummeled by republican talking points & a press hyperventilating at the possibilty of some cool grainy green video. really - who did the right thing? who can justify their vote today without going "humminnahumminna?"

        i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

        by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:45:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let's discuss the Right's REAL talking point (4.00)
          The issue, as framed by the Right, was simple: you either supported George W. Bush and his war or you didn't. No nuance, no parsing of sentences, no extenuating circumstances, no explanations allowed.

          If you didn't support the war, you were called  "wimp," "hippie," "Saddam-lover," "terrorist-lover," "America-hater," and many other names not printable in the mainstream media.

          At least that's how I remember how the debate played out.

          •  Do You Trust Saddam? (none)
            That's what it came down to.  And he clearly had obstructed the inspectors.  Man, he had to be hiding something.  Little did we know it was just a huge chicken game on his part that he lost.

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:06:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (4.00)
              I trust the UN inspection process that was on the ground, just like I trust that there is no way in hell we would march of the Euphrates if we though for one second Saddam could pop a nuke for real.

              And I am not even a member of Congress wit ha staff and access to more than what we in the public domain arena had.

              ANyone who abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities better come to Jesus quickly if they expect to have any credibility on foreign affairs ever again (anyone on Kerry or Clinton's staff reading?)

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:52:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Trust (none)
                Mitch,  that UN inspection team you trust missed the entire Iraqi nuclear program that wasn't known at all until the defection of Saddam's two sons-in-law to Jordon.

                Do we trust that Saddam isn't hidding something?  Saddam hates us and did try to kill our ex-president after all.  He had started two wars, so he's hardly a rational actor.  Given all his obstruction against the inspectors, was it out of the rhelm of possibility that he might be developing WMD and might pass them to a terrorist group?

                Still, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.  I would have preferred more inspections and a serious diplomatic effort (just like all the Dems who voted for the IWR).  A better president would have used the IWR to avoid war and push through a much stiffer inspection regime.

                My point is that this was a difficult vote when you've got to vote Yea or Nay.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:01:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No...that was not the same UN tema and you know it (none)
                  Eve Powell and Rice prior to 9/11 was of the opnion that Saddam was de-fanged.

                  ANd you might want to go over ALL of what the main son-in-law debriefings revealed, which the Bush adminsitration always left out of the public talking points, that he said the entire nuclear program was dismantled and there was no long a nuke program in Iraq.

                  And that was PRIOR to Operation Desert Fox taking out any remaining suspected sites back in 1998.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                  by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:07:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  A big game of chicken that Saddam lost? (none)
              Haven't you noticed?  We lost.  We're still there.  The war continues.  It was not a success.

              Or are you saying, capturing Saddam is worth 3 years of war and no end in sight?

              What happened to common sense around here?  Christ!  Saddam is hiding something from inspectors and we need years-long war in the Middle East!

              Why?  Just to stir up a hornet's nest.

              Did you read the diary written by Todd Johnston about Yellow Cake Uranium?  link

              Saddam was hiding something???  Bush and Cheney have been LYING through their teeth!!!  And the issue is Saddam Hussein is a bad guy?

              Since this diary is supposedly about right-wing talking points on dkos, let your comment be an example.  "Saddam Hussein is a bad guy" is the prime right-wing talking point!

              In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

              by yet another liberal on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:10:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No (none)
                his point is that Saddam had a lot to lose in this game of chicken.

                And considering where he's at now compared to where he was pre-war, he's pretty fucking stupid...

                (Cross-posted in my pants)

                by Calishfornia on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:17:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (none)
                We've lost.

                But, the point is on how senators felt BEFORE the IWR.

                Still, shame on us if we cannot also condemn Saddam for invading two countries, violating UN resolutions, and being a brutal dictator.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:17:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Oh it did not. (none)
              Do You Trust Saddam? That's what it came down to.

               It came down to do you trust Bush and his cabal.

              "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

              by colleen on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:56:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  those are... (none)
            talking points that i don't subscribe to either.

            "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

            by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:10:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  let me say this (4.00)
          i spent a lot of time researching this today.  not just taking what everyone thinks they know now, but really trying go back to 2002 and figure out how all this happened.  

          hindsight is a wonderful thing.  people who are now right can say they were always right and call everyone who was wrong a "coward."

          this is their prerogative.  but it is not even close to understanding anything.

          anyway..  a link up there in the diary includes some words by byrd.  if i had to give my personal opinion in would agree with byrd.  it's wrong to cede war powers authority to the president in general.  i will give props to anyone who voted not do that.

          but i still won't buy into the RNC talking point that a vote on IWR was a vote for this war.

          after researching the whole thing, i just find it UNtruthful.

          if IWR had said "diplomacy failed, bush needs authority to unilaterally invade iraq", it would be different.  i would be the first person in the world to totally crucify anyone who voted for that.

          IWR said "diplomacy has not yet failed, bush needs authority to pursue a diplomatic solution."

          we look back on that now and we're convinced that it could have never been that.

          it's hindsight.

          that's all it is.

          "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

          by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:06:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why did he need an IWR to practice diplomacy? (none)
            "diplomacy has not yet failed, bush needs authority to pursue a diplomatic solution."
          •  go on back to 2002 & tell me you didn't (none)
            know, absolutely know, after that authorization was given we were going to war. that it wasn't just a matter of time & who was going with us. because for all the posturing & pretending, i was certain that if you gave that drunk the keys, he'd drive the car right into a ditch or over a cliff.

            i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

            by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:34:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  truthfully (none)
              i figured the inertia towards war was so far ingrained into america after 9-11 that very little mattered.

              i don't think voting against IWR would have stopped it.

              "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

              by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:42:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  an honest reply (none)
                & one that those who voted for the i.w.r. very possibly believed. we are going to war anyway, might as well get on the right side of it. right? i think they should come right out & say it. wouldn't sound weak or cynical would it?

                i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

                by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:27:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  there's no easy answers here (none)
                  i just don't think a vote for IWR was a vote for this war, that's all.

                  if you ask me to be honest about then and now....

                  every time someone says "a vote for IWR was a vote for the Iraq war" i immediately think of what the iraq war is and what they voted for and i honestly think it's an untruthful statement.

                  there's one other thing i wanted to add to this diary that i kind of forgot about, and i think it's important.  the mainstream media, as well as the anti-war folks are fond of beating dems over the head with this question.  of making dems pay for their IWR vote.

                  but what about Hagel.  many of these same activists have said they would vote for Hagel before they voted for a so-called "pro-war" dem.

                  it strikes me as very telling that nobody ever wants to make Hagel pay for his vote.

                  Hagel doesn't have to admit he made a mistake.

                  does he??

                  "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

                  by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:44:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Infantile contrarianism. (4.00)
        "Bush didn't say Mission Accomplished, the guys who put up the sign did."

        Bullshit argument. You don't give someone authority to go to war unless you expect them to use it. To suggest otherwise is clutching so hard at straws that your fingers may snap.

        "If only lies had semen stains..." -- Jon Stewart

        by HollywoodOz on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:58:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site