Skip to main content

View Diary: Shut Your Fucking Pie-Hole... (381 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm... (4.00)
    You must not read a whole lot of Congressional Floor Statements. I wonder why...

    Twenty-three other Senators had their reasons, but they aren't any more "cut and dried" than the "Kerry voted for the war" mantra. Should they all have voted NO? Knowing what we know now - that Bush was lying - of course they should have...but hindsight is always 20/20. You seem to think that those who voted NO automatically did so because they believed Bush was a liar. The transcripts of floor testimony prove otherwise.

    Barbara Boxer, my Senator, voted against HJ Res 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. After a few comments about the hardship it may pose to families where both parents are enlisted, she argued not on whether or not to go to war, but on the language of the resolution that allowed the President to go it alone. She argued for a similar resolution proposed by Senator Levin which basically authorized the exact same thing, but stated that the President had to come back to Congress for authorization if he could not build a coalition. The Levin resolution did not pass. That's democracy for you.

    Boxer is also 1) from California and 2) up for re-election. She's not facing a major fight against Bill Jones right now, but if she had voted for the resolution it would be an entirely different story. There is enough true "anti-war" sentiment here in California that Boxer may very well have been facing a serious anti-war candidate in a three-way race rather than just Republican Bill Jones.

    She's also not the only one who argued for different resolutions giving the President authorization to go to war or amendments that would have changed some aspect of the authorization. Lieberman, Kennedy, Graham (who all voted NO on HJRes114) and many others supported the use of force, but argued on the details of one resolution or amendment or another. Kerry preferred the Biden-Lugar resolution submitted prior to HJRes114, which also did not pass.

    Many in Congress appear to have committed the grave sin of believing their President when he was saying that all the intelligence indicated Iraq has WMDs. A Senator had better have rock-solid evidence to the before s/he votes against that bill on that belief that the President is lying. Nobody had that in October 2002. Graham - who was certainly in a position to know more than most - voted against HJRes114 because he preferred a different resolution, not because he thought the President was lying.

    In the end, HJRes114 passed...end game.

    Need a bumper sticker?
    Bush/Cheney '04: Keeping the "duh" in "W"!

    by mugsimo on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:33:12 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Speaks to a different subject (4.00)
      For some here (myself included) this speaks ot the paucity of leadership even from those who should have lead in that timeframe not to the "murkiness" of the threat from Iraq.

      We all knew that SH was a dickhead who was ruthless to his people.

      We deluded ourselves, though, to depart from Colin Powell's May 2001 assessment of Iraq:  a relatively impotent country that has virtually NONE of its 1991 capablities that had been and continued to be successfully contained.

      THE ONLY THING that changed from 5/15/2001 and the invasion was 9/11.  SH didn't get any of the weaponry described in the run up to the invasion between Colin Powell's May 15, 2001 speach to Congressional committees and his later defense of the Invasion.  No new weaponry was acquired!!

      That so many democratic senators could have abandoned the ideals of the party at such a time  speaks to their spinelessness (perhaps fogiveable in the wake of 9/11) at the time, not to the murkiness of the threat of Iraq.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site