Skip to main content

View Diary: Frameshop: Feingold Now Leads Democrats [UPDATED] (462 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The difference (none)
    is that we can understand why he votes the way he does on both the things we agree on and the things we don't. I will never understand why John Kerry was unable to grant Bush Sr. the authority to invade Iraq in 1991, but fine with giving his son the go ahead in 2002.

    I don't think Feingold is the only principled Senator. But he is the only principled senator who has the same principles that I do. I don't think that Lieberman, for example, is a corporate sellout, so much as someone with very different values than mine.

    It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain

    by Bundy on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:08:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  if you (none)
      actually read the two resolutions....

      you'll find out why.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:17:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read the 2002 resolution. (none)
        Is that fair? As I was six years old in 1991, you'll forgive me for not reading it at the time? A year or so ago, I did read a piece of Kerry's senate floor speach explaining his vote on the Gulf War, and he said something along the lines of wanting to discourage the use of war before trying other tactics. I see no reason why that principle would lead him to authorize junior in 2002.

        I'm familiar with your case that Kerry wanted to give Bush negotiation leverage. I respect that. However, I still hold that it was irresponsible to give Bush that war power.

        I like Kerry. Just not as much as Feingold. My guess is that you like Feingold too, but not as much as Kerry. We're allowed to disagree on this, I think.

        It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain

        by Bundy on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:38:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  woo hoo!! (none)
          and i'm glad you read my argument about what's different about the two resolutions.

          no.  thank god.  we don't have to agree.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:40:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Explain it to us then (none)
        Becuase it makes no sense to me why Kerry's votes were 180 degree bassakwards.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

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

        by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:42:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i have (none)
          from the following diary:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          There is actually a very striking difference between these two resolutions and the Iraq War Resolution.  These two resolutions asserted,.. in very clear terms... that diplomacy had failed.  The failure of diplomacy was a pre-condition of the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Persian Gulf Resolutions.  So one would have had every reason to believe that voting for those resolutions was a vote for war.  

          The failure of diplomacy was NOT a stipulated condition of the Iraq War Resolution.  It's not what "everyone knew".  The notion that diplomacy had failed was NEVER offered on the Senate Floor.  This is why a vote on IWR was not a vote for war.  

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:54:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ROFL (none)
            So tell me the diplomacy that was tried and failed as the prerequisite of the Gulf of Tokin resolution?

            The GOTR was  constructed on the basis of claimed attacks which violated international law, not because some diplomatic effort failed.

            ANd the violations of international law could not be more clear cut in the GWR so the rationale that we should try more diplomacy, which was not the rationale given why Kerry voted no then, but rather he wanted sanctions to play out, is a stupid vote. So Kerry was wrong to vote for it.

            The IWR, given the context of the administration power shows precisely how stupid Kerry is, to think that Bush was not going to invade, no matter what the diplomatic situation was. His votes on the IWR and the GWR were both grave errors in judgment, not to mention abdication of his Constitutional obligation to not to hand the power to take the country to war unilaterally to the executive branch.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

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

            by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 04:48:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if you read each of the three resolutions (none)
              it is clear.

              2 of them expressly stipulate the failure of diplomacy.  that a diplomatic response is not an option.  to the GOTR, real or not, the resolution said we will be responding to attacks.

              the IWR is different.

              there is no such paragraphs in the first two resolutions titled:  "SUPPORT FOR DIPLOMACY."

              was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

              by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 04:55:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site