Nobody Who Supported the Iraq War Should Be President

I am absolutely confounded that so many avowedly anti-war folks are ready to endorse candidates that refused to stand with us to oppose the Iraq war. As a student organizer in C.A.N. - the Campus Anti-War Network - I organized students and youths to march in Washington in the lead up to "Shock and Awe," and also to demand that the troops come home NOW.

The media diminished our numbers in their accounts, the politicians ignored us, the Feds and the police 'surveilled' us; we were the traitors, the naive, the blame America first motherf*kers.

We are still bearing the costs of the Iraq War, and no apology can undo the damage, death and destruction that millions of people will ultimately suffer.

People are dying for a lie, and just like no murderer can get off the hook by saying "my bad, I apologize, I will never do it again" we cannot just allow a "leader" to favor, support or even co-sponsor a murderous, illegal war and then reward that person with the presidency.

Just as disturbing as the vote for the Iraq War itself was the fact that in order to justify any attack on Iraq, you would have to buy into the Neo-Con doctrine of preventive war.

The idea that anyone who EVER supported a doctrine of preventive war strikes should move into the White House again is ridiculous; we have a chance to elect people who rejected preventive war from the beginning.

This is not to say that we should reject everyone who ever supported Bush on Iraq; but when more reliable people, who stood with and spoke for us ask for my support, they will get it, they deserve it. And our country deserves the chance to make a clean break from past mistakes, political posturing and war mongering.

The Republicans will nominate a pro-war candidate to carry the Cheney mantle; we needn't offer up a Democrat who can be painted as an Iraq hypocrite - who favored or co-sponsored the war, but changed their positions when the political conditions flipped or when the struggle in Iraq turned out to be not so easy as getting rid of Saddam "Hitler" Hussein.

This is what happened with Kerry in 2004. He did not advocate troop withdrawal, he always hedged on the war, and so, IMO, Americans wondered about the purpose of electing a president Kerry if all he's going to do is continue Bush's war policies, or at "best" implement what we now know as a 'surge'.

I SO urge you not to make the mistake of nominating a Democrat who is to blame for the existence of this Iraq War.

*The War is still an issue, it does not end with troop withdrawal.

*The suffering and destruction unleashed by the Bush Administration and the complicit Congress will not heal for decades.

*A President who was wise enough to understand the tensions, powers, cultures and history of Iraq and its people is more desirable to a President who :
    a) ever trusted Bush with unlimited power
    b) ignored the many legitimate objections and concerns about an invasion
    c) Helped to usher in the dangerous preventive war precedent advocated by neo-cons for years.
    d) Didn't even support the Levin Amendment which would've required Bush to receive authorization from the Senate to make war if the inspections didn't work.

What Democrat will be skeptical or wary of joining the formidable War Party when they can just placate anti-war voters by changing rhetoric and mia culpas ?!

My sentiment against unjust wars is not quite that cheap.

•  Tips

  by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM PDT

  •  Video Evidence:

    Links:
    Obama on Iraq
    JRE's CSIS speech
    On Hlllary and Kyl-Lieberman
    HRC's IWR floor speech
    Edwards' IWR floor speech
    Edwards in March 2003
    Hillary in March 2003

    by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM PDT

    •  Is there a way to link directly to this group of

      videos?  Would it be too much to ask for you to post it as a diary to faciliate direct linking?  Thanks!

      by steveGA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM PDT

      •  Hi Steve, this tiny URL: TinyURL.com/2u72b9

        will take one directly to my comment.

        URL text: TinyURL.com/2u72b9
        Test link

        by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM PDT

    •  Setting the record straight. Thank you

      for posting these videos here.

      by Fallon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:41:52 PM PDT

  •  agree----it is nonsensical to nominate

    someone who exhibited such poor judgment---or shameful political calculation---which sent so many to their deaths----for no reason---in this 'worst foreign policy disaster' war-----the repercussions of which will last a generation or longer.
     And we lose that issue for the general election-------it's idiotic.  And self-defeating.

    by dotster on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM PDT

  •  Wow, it must be a very simple world you live in.

    Only one issue is important to you in making a choice this important, astounding !

    by ichibon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:31:05 PM PDT

    •  What else is there beyond LIFE or DEATH?

      If you know your decision will kill, you shouldn't leave it to George W. Bush to decide for you.

      by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

      •  there are OTHER life and death issues actually

        health care, science funding, hate crimes - gay marriage, etc etc etc. depends on who's life you're focusing on.

        by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM PDT

        •  Nobody's disputing that.

          And I'm not the one ridiculing anybody for what motivated them to vote.

          by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:37:32 PM PDT

          •  read your diary title

            you ARE disputing that.

            you're clearly stating that the only vote that counts, the only candidate position that really counts is Iraq. Thus any other issue of relevance to other voters is less valid.

            insulting, and naive. plain and simple.

            by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM PDT

            •  QUOTATION, troll ?

              by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM PDT

              •  Nobody Who Supported the Iraq War Should Be Presi

                dent - quote unquote. And you contend that support means having voted for the Iraq resolution. Thus regardless of the highly progressive votes and positions HRC has taken on a wide range of issues, she is ineligible in your book to be president.

                I personally think some of those other issues are more important than her Iraq vote.

                by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:15:24 PM PDT

                •  That's not the same

                  As disputing that there are other life and death issues.

                  Show me some evidence that an anti-war candidate has been as catastrophically wrong/out-of-step with reality on those other issues as the war proponents were on Iraq, and I'll reconsider my thinking.

                  by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM PDT

  •  tip for you college DEM

    there are other issues also of consideration when choosing a candidate. Know what, Ron Paul has been against the War --- but that DOES NOT QUALIFY him to be president.

    Obama cannot be judged on this issue with 100% certainty since he never had to put his vote where his mouth was. But considering how he handled the Iran vote - not present - doesn't bode so well.

    I want a president that is a majority of the time right on progressive issues. Since I realise that a major issue for me, may not be for someone else - and vice versa, I'm mature enough I think to settle for the one that best suits the most of my fellow DEMs.

    One of my main issues is gay rights. I trust HRC on this, I don't trust Obama on this. Hmmmm, do I think that disqualifies him and warrants abstaining in the GE if he's nominee --- NO.  Likewise, I take offense when someone comes here writing such an ideological diary that demeans the issues I think are preeminent.

    by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM PDT

•  I guess that leaves Kucinich.

  Obama owns the war now, with his votes and statements.

  by BoringDem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

  •  In what sense ?

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM PDT

  •  no he doesn't

    he was against it always and the votes he's made were forced by the WH

    by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM PDT

    •  If that's the case. . .

      why weren't the votes cast by the other candidates also "forced by the White House"?

      by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM PDT

    •  HAAAA, that is the dumbest comment of the day!

      by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

  •  Yes. Obama voted for

    funding and against Kerry-Feingold.

    Kucinich or Gravel.  Frankly, Kucinich has fallen in my eyes.  It seems to be more about him than making change. So that leaves Gravel, who made a damn good video.

    by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Frankly, Kucinich has fallen in my eyes.

      Bet he was your best friend up until  he instructed his supporters to go Obama as a second choice. Sure you omitted that part by accident.

      by stevej on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM PDT

      •  Big freakin' deal

        Kucinich has fallen in my eyes as well.

        Chris Dodd also thought Kucinich's tactic a very poor one.  Dodd will not ask his supporters to 2nd choice for any other candidate.  He'll leave that up to his supporters.

        by Terre on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:45:31 PM PDT

    •  David Sirota on Obama

      Mr. Obama Goes to Washington 6/07/06:

      Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he "loudly and vigorously" opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, "many had been drawn initially by Obama’s early opposition to the invasion." But "when his speech at the antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site," the magazine reported, "activists found that to be an ominous sign"–one that foreshadowed Obama’s first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war. One of Obama’s first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq’s WMD.

      [snip]

      In November Obama’s reticence on the war ended. Five days after hawkish Democratic Representative Jack Murtha famously called for a withdrawal, Obama gave a speech calling for a drawdown of troops in 2006. "Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq," he said. But then he retreated. On Meet the Press in January Obama regurgitated catchphrases often employed by neoconservatives to caricature those demanding a timetable for withdrawal. "It would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down," he said. Then, as polls showed support for the war further eroding, Obama tacked again, giving a speech in May attacking the war and mocking the "idea that somehow if you say the words ‘plan for victory’ and ’stay the course’ over and over and over and over again...that somehow people are not going to notice the 2,400 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at the Dover Air Force Base."

      [snip]

      Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties.

      Quite an eye-opening piece, if my eyes hadn't already been opened.

      BTW, I linked to Sirota's article from Senator Obama, You're No Paul Wellstone

      by Terre on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM PDT

      •  Why do ya'll have to make this about Obama?

        It's all about dragging Obama down with some people around here.

        I never brought him up.

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM PDT

        •  Check your diary title

          and tell me it wasn't a hit diary on Edwards or Clinton.  You didn't have to name names.  The implication is clear.

          by Terre on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM PDT

          •  In YOUR mind, perhaps...

            The war is my central concern.

            And I don't want a president who would more easily trust Bush than prevent bombs from falling.

            Who are more persuaded by Bush's judgment on when it's right to invade Iraq than their own judgment on the matter.

            by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM PDT

            •  Persuaded by Bush's judgment

              Please.  Which of our candidates NOW feel "persuaded by Bush's judgment"?

              You don't have to answer.  If you want to keep living in the past over the AUMF, or the votes that continued Iraq funding (much more recent), be my guest.

              There are a hell of a lot of other issues to be concerned about.

              by Terre on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM PDT

              •  Change the subject, why don't you.

                Of course its your prerogative to consider other issues.

                But it is a fact - a vote for the 2002 AUMF - is a vote with Bush.

                And that was BEFORE Colin Powell made his b.s. U.N. presentation.

                by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM PDT

                •  I'm not changing the subject

                  Just because I take issue with the fact that you're making this into a ONE issue debate, doesn't mean I'm changing the subject.

                  Good luck to whomever you support.

                  by Terre on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM PDT

    •  MTP Feb 4, 2007

      As late as Feb 4 2007 Edwards supported funds for the troops only stating he would not fund the surge.

      MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate, would you vote to cut off funding for the war?

      SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I’m not running for the Senate, I’m running for president of the United States. What I would do is, is say we’re not going to fund an escalation of this war. That’s what I think we should do. I would not cut off funding for the men and women who are part of our troops and serving in, in, in Iraq. Now, we know that a significant number—in fact, I think most of the troops who are part of the surge—and by the way, there was a disturbing report in the last couple of days that, you know, 20,000-plus troops may turn into 40,000 troops, because there’s 20,000-plus combat troops who will have to be supported. I think that’s—will be very surprising to most of America who heard the president speak about this. But we know most of them are already there, and what’s actually going to happen is, in Anbar province where the Marines are, around Baghdad where the Army is, their deployments are going to be extended. And these are men and women who are already on their second, third—many of them—their second and third deployment. They deserve to come home. Their families deserve for them to come home.

      And what I’m saying is that the men and women in Congress who have a vote, and those of us who have a, a platform to talk about this nationally, we have a responsibility to those men and women. And I, I actually believe that what the president and Cheney are counting on is that what we’ll do is we’ll talk about it, we’ll complain about it, we’ll talk about how bad the escalation is, but, at the end of the day, we’ll go along. We cannot go along. We cannot enable this president to make another in a—in a terrible series of bad mistakes.

      MR. RUSSERT: So stop funding for the monies that would be paying for the surge?

      SEN. EDWARDS: That would pay for the escalation, that’s correct.

      by folgers on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:57:03 PM PDT

    •  It appears that Edwards voted for funding

      in early 2003.

      He then flip-flopped on the very war he co-sponsored and hawked all around in order to play catch up with Dean in Oct'03, while also triangulating at the same that he would have invaded Iraq if he were President.

         MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

         EDWARDS: I would.

         MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

         EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

      10/13/03

      Alert to IA and other voters: It's the same $87bn vote that led to Kerry's loss in 2004.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM PDT

    •  My moral support goes to Kucinich as he has

      the purest record of opposing the Iraq War and I greatly admire his efforts to bring impeachment before the House.  To their credit, Edwards and Obama now also favor an end to the War albeit differently.  We do not live in a perfect World however so given all three will end the War, other issues must also be examined such as corporate lobbying in Washington D.C., universal health care, and electability.  While I still favor the underdog, Kucinich, I believe Edwards meets the remaining criteria better than any other Democratic candidates.

      by Fallon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM PDT

  •  That's bogus spin. Obama warned of the complexity

    that invading Iraq would engender (just as Gore did):

    He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
    -- Obama, October 2002

    And just like Gore (another responsible, non-pandering politician), Obama would pull out carefully, methodically and responsibly while doing our best to leave Iraq in as stable a state as possible for not only moral and geo-political stability reasons but also to ensure that we won't have to return later to fix other problems that could result from a reckless withdrawal, and to improve our standing and reputation around the world.

    Honest and responsible politicians try their best to do the right at all times. Not invading and not voting for IWR were the right things to do in 2002/2003. Pulling out while being being as moral and responsible as possible has been the right, and hence progressive, thing to do since after we invaded and wrecked Iraq.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM PDT

  •  i disagree with the 'owns the war' meme

    None of our candidates OWN THE WAR and we need to stop that blather NOW. The war is a GOP and BUSH war, period - fucking PERIOD.

    I do agree though with the sentiment of your comment that relative to HRC, Obama also has to accept responsibility for his votes to continue the war when he had every chance to vote to stop it, to introduce amendments to stop the funding, etc. For him and his supporters to slam HRC is absolutely duplicitous.

    by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM PDT

    •  Now there's something I agree with.

      by BoringDem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM PDT

•  That leaves Kucinich.

  by Rhoda Mae on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM PDT

  •  Gravel?

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

•  asdf

  I'll agree with this much:

  "Nobody who supports the war now should be president."

  I don't give a crap what they thought about it then. The important thing is that they've come around.

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM PDT

  •  Really?

    The fact is that Edwards didn't have the judgment to help prevent the biggest foreign policy disaster in our nation's history, but you don't give a crap?

    Suit yourself, but I'm voting for someone that spoke out against it when it mattered most.

    by dagnabbit on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM PDT

•  Count out Obama then

  He voted again and again to fund the war in Iraq, with no timelines.

  Regardless, I think your premise is flat out wrong.

  by NCDem Amy on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

  •  It Doesn't Bother You

    That people had the power to stop Bush before he "accomplished" this war and instead they joined his efforts ?!

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM PDT

•  I agree

  But what about a person who, after subsequently becoming a senator, consistently voted to support the war? Should his subsequent actions be excused by the fact that, when still a minor politician in a very liberal district, he made a couple of speeches against the war?

  by Piggy Podges on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM PDT

•  Church Lady sez:

  How conveeenient !!!

  by Barry in MIA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM PDT

  •  I think I just had an 80s flashback.

    Yup, I did.

    by HairyTrueMan on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

    •  I think the standard for president should be - -

      no one with testes.  You'll all agree, right?  It's a neutral standard.

      by Barry in MIA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM PDT

•  Good people cast shitty votes sometimes.

  Get used to it.  Nobody's perfect.  According to your formula, Senator Tom Harkin isn't progressive enough for you.  Aren't you the "pure" one.

  Oh, and Senator John F. Kennedy didn't vote for censure of Joe McCarthy.   Fortunately, most people then weren't only about one bad vote, either.

  by dfb1968 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM PDT

  •  Red Herrings

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM PDT

    •  the world's complicated - grow up

      by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:35:26 PM PDT

      •  Stop trolling.

        Thanks for your vital contribution to the discussion, based on the merits of course.

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:42:24 PM PDT

•  I supported the take-down of Saddam's regime,

  not as a "preventative strike" but because of the dozens of UN Security Council resolution violations.

  If international law isn't enforced, then it becomes useless and will disappear.

  I understand that the UN's charter doesn't allow for enforcement by a country without a vote to authorize it, but the risk of a toothless UN evaporating from the world stage was just too high, in my opinion.

  They do too much good for humanity.

  by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM PDT

  •  Of course, I disagreed with every decision made

    after, such as going in with too few troops, not protecting against looting, disbanding the army, keeping Abu Ghraib open, torturing the population, etc.

    And I think there's no excuse for Bush lying the country into war, cherry picking intelligence, etc.

    But on the whole, I'm glad Saddam's regime is out of power, and I wish Israel's UNSCR violating regime was out too.

    by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM PDT

    •  I also think we should have handed

      control of the country to UN Blue Helmets almost immediately.

      by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM PDT

      •  Like that woulda happened!

        How would BusCheney's cronies gotten all those juicy contracts if the UN was running things?  Wasn't ever going to happen cuz the Neocons hate, hate, HATE the UN.

        by Fabian on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM PDT

    •  Those factors don't make a difference

      Because they have nothing to do with the central problem in Iraq:

      SECTARIAN VIOLENCE

      If all of those things had gone "right" how would those have eased tensions between the factions of Iraq? Brought political reconciliation? Stopped ethnic cleansing of entire neighborhoods and regions? Prevented the rush of millions of Iraqis to neighboring countries? Stopped Turkey's incursions into Iraq?

      by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM PDT

      •  However, this genious and his administration

        couldn't have screwed this thing up anymore if they tried.  Keeping Rumsfeld so long and continuing to listen to Cheny kept made a bad situation worse.

        by astoundedstill on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM PDT

      •  The sectarian violence

        slowly ramped up over many months.

        I think there was a short window of time where an ethical, neutrally-perceived third party (like UN blue helmets) could have stepped in, stabilized the country, and pushed a quick election.

        by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM PDT

        •  Respectfully disagree...

          The occupation was illegitimate, it was seen by Iraqis as illegitimate, many Iraqis STILL support attacks on U.S. troops!

          U.N. helmets are just as foreign to Iraqis as U.S. helmets.

          And the sectarian violence ramped up over several months because the amount of bombing and chaos was highest in the beginning of the invasion/occupation, and the factions/power centers were just being established and organized.

          by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM PDT

          •  Respectfully disagree as well.

            Both the invasion and occupation were illegitimate, but I believe the invasion was justifiable.

            Initially, many Iraqis thanked us for taking down Saddam.  A majority didn't start supporting attacks against us until after Abu Ghraib, when almost everyone in the country knew someone who had been raped or tortured.

            I feel there was a chance at doing something positive for Iraq, the UN, international law, and the world, but it was quickly squandered.

            by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

            •  And What does Abu Ghraib have to do with...

              Sectarian Violence?

              by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:20:23 PM PDT

    •  I don't exactly agree

      but I am not inclined to ball up the whole mess into "they supported it so their dead to me crowd".  That vote should have given him leverage...and it is GWB's fault that he misrepresent, lied, planned poorly, listened neocons and not Shinseky or Powell (for example), let the country fall apart (Iraq), staffed his administration top to bottom throughout this county and Iraq with unqualified cronies......etc.  In addition, I can understand, why the vote to discontinue funds for the troop is so difficult.  Here again, it's GWB creating false miserable choices and I squarely lay all of the misery at his and his chosen hacks feet.

      by astoundedstill on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM PDT

  •  Then you're an idiot.

    Sorry . . . but it's true.  Under the same argument, Pakistan or Russia could invade Israel and depose the goverment because Israel is in violation of 65 UN resolutions (another 30 were vetoed by the US).

    At NO TIME did the UN call for deposing the Hussein regime; the UN asked that the inspectors be allowed to do their work.

    by bobdevo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM PDT

    •  For the sake of the UN and

      international law, I think the Israeli government should be deposed, after a fair warning period where they're urged to come into compliance.

      But that's just me.

      by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM PDT

      •  I like your Moxie . . .

        but I don't think AIPAC would let that happen.

        by bobdevo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM PDT

        •  Prolly not. :)

          by leisure on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:15:38 PM PDT

      •  Man where is AIPAC and the other defenders at?

        Last time I voiced that opinion I caught all kinds of hell.

        by ichibon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

  •  If That's The Case

    You should support the take-down of the Israeli Government by sanctions first, and if those fail, military invasion.

    by greenskeeper on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM PDT

•  Ask John Bruhns Whay He Supports Edwards

  "As someone who served in the U.S. military honorably for eight years I am saddened by what has come of America," Bruhns said. "It is absolutely heartbreaking to go overseas to fight a war just to come home to see your fellow Americans unemployed, in debt, down on their luck, and living hand-to-mouth. The American people are ready for a complete change from what we have lived through with the disgraceful and tragic presidency of George W. Bush. We need a president that will respect and fight for the rights of all Americans.

  "I strongly believe that John Edwards is the best candidate running for the presidency of the United States," Bruhns continued. "I believe that he will be strong at home and abroad. I believe that he has the best plan to end poverty, protect American jobs, and restore hope to the middle class. Most importantly, I believe wholeheartedly that he will end the war in Iraq and that he would never send our brave men and women in uniform into harms way unless it is absolutely necessary."

  John's endorsement of Edwards

  by Iddybud on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM PDT

•  MeThinks I'm confusing some folks

  My idea about supporting the Iraq War means supporting the invasion.

  To me the debate over funding/defunding is a separate issue altogether, and a political loser on many levels.

  IMHO the funding issue is not the same because the troops are already deployed and Congress already rendered themselves ultimately powerless to stop Bush's agenda when they gave him the War authority.

  The politics of "supporting the troops" is nothing to play with going into an historical election in which the Dems have a good chance at great success.

  by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM PDT

  •  It's all the same

    Wars have been shut down by pulling the purse strings.

    Shit WAR ends when the money dries up.

    by Salo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM PDT

    •  Really? A War With an Invasion?

      What wars? In the last 50 years? In which we invaded and occupied a foreign entity ?

      by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM PDT

  •  Splitting Hairs, talking out both sides of one's

    Mouth.

    Ah, the polity of politics.

    Hah!

    by ROGNM on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM PDT

  •  Exactly. Look at the big picture people, there

    were exactly two chances to stop the war:

    1. Before it happened

    2. During the 2004 election cycle

    All this counting of votes on funding is nonsense.  Anyone who spoke out against the war before it started, when it it was hugely unpopular to do so, has earned my respect and the chance for my vote.

    Conversely, those who hawked the war to us (whether out of ignorance, incompentance, or self-interest) have demonstrated conclusively that they cannot and should not be trusted with the most powerful job in the free world.

    Like the original poster I'm really disappointed at how few people seem to get this.  I'm having flashbacks to 2002 all over again...

    by steveGA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM PDT

  •  convenient cherry-picking

    why didn't Obama introduce legislation to at least get a sentiment of the Illinois senate when he was earning that vaunted experience in Springfield.....?

    giving lip service to anti-war sentiment is NOT the same as casting a vote. So I guess he's off your list - right? As said above - that really only leaves Kucinich for you idealist.

    by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM PDT

•  That's so stupid.

  Everyone that voted for Bush in 2004 ratified the war.

  You've got to bring that 50 percent around with some repect to natural feelings of patriotism.

  by Salo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM PDT

  •  A Vote for Kerry, too, was a vote for War

    and continued occupation.

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM PDT

    •  oh now your just being SILLY!

      by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:40:22 PM PDT

      •  Offer up some evidence that proves me wrong!

        Kerry RAN on FIXING the occupation, by 'changing course.'

        He refused to endorse a troop withdrawal.

        Therefore a vote for Kerry was a vote for more war and occupation.

        http://query.nytimes.com/...

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM PDT

•  Ted Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin.

  Your formula rather conveniently knocks out every candidate.  

  by Salo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM PDT

  •  If Ted Kennedy is "every" candidate

    But he's just one man, who supported the fateful, murderous Tonkin resolution' which President Johnson BLATANTLY LIED about, and Congress did not have the benefit of an alternative account of what was happening in Viet Nam.

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM PDT

•  At least Dodd

  Was the first to partner with Feingold to get the troops out...more of a saving grace than the frontrunners...as far as the Obama argument goes we simply don't know how he would have voted if in Congress at the time...you really have to look at how he seems to stand with the leadership etal on other matters, so I don't give even him a pass on this...

  by valadon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM PDT

•  I dispise HRC

  But it is dialogue like this that continues to fracture our country. It is week with grounds on emotion only. The blame goes straight to the lies and deciet from the white house. Heck, they had Colin Powell present falsified reports to the UN. Who the freak on earth thinks the WH would make up such crap? Oh wait, those who authorized to use force were supposed to vote that the WH was a complete sham. Don't crucify them for having trust in Colin Powell. Moving on, it's been Biden who has been the , THE, THE MOST VOCAL CRITIC of the war since it's inception. THE only one with a real (bi-partisian supported) plan to leave Iraq ratiionally. If we talk about Foriegn Policy, we cannot elect any other beside Joe Biden.

  by smheart78 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM PDT

  •  Not true.

    Every SINGLE person who supported this war deserves blame.

    It was COMMON KNOWLEDGE in Washington that the Neo-Cons, for YEARS, had intended to attack Iraq and depose Saddam.

    Even PAT FUCKING BUCHANAN yelled about this from the rooftops.

    If Pat Buchanan can get it, so can a liberal Democrat!

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, you're too angry to rationalize with.

      Iam freaking frustrated with the war as well, embarrassed and saddaned by it. But I know where to lay the blame and I am not gonna let extreme doves pounce on my emotions.
      We've gone on and on about authority to use force for Bush vs a vote for war for months and many...nay MOST of us have gotten over it. The extreme minority doves that can't distinguish emotion from reality uses this to cast their vote.

      by smheart78 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

      •  Rationalize the Invasion of Iraq? HA

        This is an instance where my emotion correlates with my rationality.

        How is it so "RATIONAL" to vote for a candidate who trusted Bush (WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER), invaded a country on shoddy, disputed and insufficient evidence? Refused to take dissenting views into account?

        This is not an extreme dove view. It's the rational view that we should most readily reward those that stood with us when it was tough.

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

    •  Is true... and are you supporting Buchanan?

      that's the twisted purity that really is so unhelpful in the real world.  After your ideal candidate wins, and ends the war in the first few months as I suspect you expect..... WHAT THEN??????   It'd all be worth it to have even a Buchanan there for another 4 years?!!!! You are being SILLIER and SILLIER

      by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:43:19 PM PDT

      •  Troll, please

        Your rationale is as good as a Swiss Bank circa 1942.

        The point, for the retarded among us, is that if even fascists like Buchanan could see through the Bush spin, Democrats who should be more connected to reality have no excuse for voting for the AUMF.

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM PDT

        •  for someone with 28 comments in the past year

          at DKos, most in this diary alone --- where do you get off calling troll just because I disagree with your excluding my candidate choice based on a single issue vote?

          by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:18:10 PM PDT

          •  Comment Nazi ?

            I didn't realize there was a comment quota.

            I say you're a troll because you've made several condescending, irrelevant charges against me PERSONALLY.

            Calling me "silly" , telling me to "grow up."

            Capiche, troll ?

            by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM PDT

            •  CHILL with the Nazi and troll comments!

              by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM PDT

              •  Chill with the trolling, or comment elsewhere...

                by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM PDT

            •  nazi labels are TR magnets

              and tossing that label around for such trivial things as commenting in a blog diary thread, really demeans the gravity of what they actually did. I don't appreciate it.

              by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM PDT

        •  please elaborate on that circa 1942 comment?

          hmmm.....   take care unless you know what you're really talking about.  

          and your grammar is atrocious for a native speaker!   you just called yoursel 'retarded' which isn't really a nice word in the first place.

          by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM PDT

          •  Research the history of the Swiss Bank vis a vis

            The THIRD REICH.

            by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:27:50 PM PDT

            •  again, taking a complicated situation

              and simplifying it in hindsight. very freshman of you. are you aware of the fact that the greatest plunder of Nazi gold stashes reside in the US banks? Are you aware of the fact that my neighborhood, which is one of the largest orthodox jewish neighborhoods in Europe wouldn't exist if the Swiss leaders in 1942 pursued such a naively purist politic as you seem to follow.

              off to bed now, have enough to handle trying to expand the minds of my own students. don't be so black-n-white is my advice. most problems, if any are simple in origin nor are they amenable to simple solutions.

              by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM PDT

              •  Okay

                Well your rationale is about as good as an AMERICAN bank, circa 1942.

                Happy now, Professor troll ?

                by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM PDT

                •  clearly my 'grow up' advice wasn't

                  incorrect. take it, please. you're decidely unpleasant tonight - hopefully you'll be in a better frame of mind if you ever come back to DKos.

                  by swissffun on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:08:22 AM PDT

  •  It's a dialogue

    That's been had before and it is a legitimate question. I, myself, thought long ago that it would make it much harder for a candidate to defend his or her vote and also run for the presidency. Since that time we have seen various concessions on the part of a few candidates. And many of us have chosen to overlook their defense in order to vote against Republicans. I think we each have to make a decision about that as to the matter of their "war" vote. There is nothing that says we must build consensus of opinion. Some may see this as so morally reprehensible that they could not in good conscience vote for a particular person. And, that seems a reasonable and justifiable decision.

    by valadon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM PDT

•  who's to blame?

  In 2006 CT democrats had a choice - ultra hawk Lieberman or Ned Lamont, who made getting out of Iraq his number 1 issue.

  Obama, who had opposed the war from the beginning, nonetheless campaigned for Lieberman.

  Odd, that.

  by mightymouse on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM PDT

•  I can't believe how unimportant the war is to so

  many on this site.  Are our memories that short?  Are our minds so easily confused?  We are taking about a fraud that was perpetuated on the American people.  A subversion of the constitution that led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.  

  And you guys have no problem rewarding participants in this crime of historic proproportions by placing them in the most powerful job on the planet?

  This is really, really shocking and depressing.  It's like I fell asleep and woke back up in 2002.

  by steveGA on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:06:45 PM PDT

  •  It Would Be a Bad Precedent

    plain and simple.

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM PDT

    •  Ideally

      It would sure be nice to quash this war machine. If an anti-war candidate were elected over the status quo it might help. And I agree that we just keep perpetuating war, and the MICC, based on the fact that we have these electoral concerns to worry about. There is always something (every two years it seems) that prevents us from making a real and valid choice (we have to elect Dems because...fill in the blank). It's a real and tragic sorry state of affairs.

      by valadon on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Screw you - just because we arent idiot purists

    doesn't mean we don't think the war is important. take your pedestrian correlations out of here. that's just insulting. think about that, please.

    by swissffun on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM PDT

    •  New Years is over, PUT-THE-BOTTLE-DOWN

      The ball must've dropped in Switzerland by now...

      by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM PDT

•  Nobody who supported the Gulf of Tonkin Res.

  should be President.

  Sorry George McGovern!

  by RBH on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:10:42 PM PDT

  •  BULLSHIT!!

    ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW

    A) THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN ATTACKED by the N. Vietnamese

    B) THAT WE PROVOKED THE N. Vietnamese

    C) And therefore THE RESOLUTION WAS BASED ON WIDELY ACCEPTED FABRICATIONS THAT WE WERE ATTACKED BY THE N. VIETNAMESE

    There is no analogy between the two.

    The Senate had the option to push the inspectors, and INDEPENDENTLY establish whether Iraq had weapons/posed a threat.

    The Senate rejected it; choosing not to learn the lesson of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM PDT

    •  Its the continued failed Occupation

      that needs to be addressed.  And that is what the candidates are doing.

      by xy109e3 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM PDT

      •  Thankfully

        by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM PDT

•  You can't always get what you want...

  And if you try sometime you find
  You get what you need...Rolling Stones

  If you rigidly demand a litmus test of one vote, albeit an important vote, you will end up with an unelectable democratic candidate and hand the Presidency over to another warmongering, cold hearted Republican nightmare.

  I totally understand your frustration, but we've seen the result of not having a strong enough candidate to stop the grand old party, and it ain't pretty.  

  We need an electable candidate, who can pick up some former red states and turn them blue.  

  We should vote for the candidate that the right wing establishment disses the most, which is the one they fear could win.  He's the one with the hair, good looks, and southern drawl.

  by CIndyCasella on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM PDT

  •  I will support the nominee

    Don't get me wrong.

    And I respect all of our Democratic candidates.

    But I feel someone who was against the invasion will more easily bury the Republicans on this issue than someone who co-sponsored the war or full throatedly supported the occupation.

    They will point at a formerly pro-war Dem and say: "(s)he supported the war, and when the going got tough (s)he wants to quit."

    And what of the idea of prevention? It doesn't bother you that your candidate signed off on it ?

    by LeftistDragonfly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:54:33 PM PDT

    •  Cruel reality

      I totally understand your P.O.V.  I think that way, too, sometimes, but I keep thinking ahead to the general election against the candidate chummy chummy with Coulter & O'Reilly, and I don't want to lose that one.  

      by CIndyCasella on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM PDT

•  So many people,

  here on Dkos and elsewhere have said repeatedly that there are very few real issues on which our democratic candidates differ.

  So many here  have nitpicked every difference between Obama and Edwards and between Obama and Hillary, while ignoring one big difference.

  One vote? Yes, it was one vote, but it was a big one. So why not choose the candidate who spoke out on this enormously important subject?

  Good diary.

  by kpardue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Yes, it's important, but...

    if voting for this candidate means ultimately we will end up with a Giuliani, then I'd say it was a big mistake.

    by CIndyCasella on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:58:31 PM PDT

    •  Giuliani

      is near to flat lining. He is going nowhere.

      by kpardue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:48:55 PM PDT