Skip to main content

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War

Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war – we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

But not so fast Jay:

ABC's Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.

Koppel's findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller's suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.

Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.

"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'

"Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."

Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.

The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.

As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:

"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it's exactly what I would do again."

Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.

But John Kerry's position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.

Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.

But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.

Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."

At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.

Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way President Bush went to war was a mistake."

But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.

Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry's equivocating.

In a speech Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."

"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."

Campaign Amnesia. Yes, you've got to love these democrats. They looked at the same exact intelligence and voted FOR the war, and are just as responsible for its execution. Yet, campaigning democrats, like Kerry and Edwards, apparently voted for the war casually, without deliberation, and 'temporarily'. And these are people ready to run the nation?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I guess since I usually try to ignore JanesT these days, I missed this post when it was first brought up ... but, I just have to say something about this!

We are not at war, JanesT!!! Let's be absolutely clear on that! In order for a war to be declared, the president would have had to have asked the Senate to draft a resolution for it. At least 2/3 of the Senate would have had to have voted to produce such a resolution and then have drafted a specific document to that effect to have declared war on Iraq. Iraq was not an enemy state. Iraq was not an immediate threat. As it turns out, Iraq was no threat at all!! It was merely a Middle-eastern country capable of being taken over with prominent oil reserves!!

The Senate voted to send a resolution to the United Nations to pressure Sadaam into doing what Bush wanted ... err ... I mean, to pressure Sadaam to continue to let weapons inspectors search his country and to devulge what had happened to the weapons (chemical and otherwise) that we knew he had because we had given them to him and/or had stood by and watched him use them on his own people.

The Senate voted to allow GeeDubya to use troops as necessary to procure compliance with that Resolution that they voted to send to the U.N. At no time has war ever been declared by the Senate ... nor did GeeDub ask them to!

So lets get this right and say that our troops are not over there in Iraq dying because the United States has declared war on them! Dubya was able to rally the media behind him in calling this a "war", and it is a sad commentary of the power and influence that that media holds in that they could cause an entire nation to perpetuate such an outrageous falsehood in every conversation they speak of this situation. Even sadder is that a president, himself, would start such a lie ... let alone reinforce it with every speech he gives.

But clearly, what we are doing in Iraq cannot possibly be a war.

Are our troops in combat? Yes. Are they dying daily while fighting enemy combatants? Yes. Why is this, if the U.S. is not sending them into a real war? It is because Bush sends them over there to secure their oil.

Let's not pretend that they are fighting for some worthy cause. It is far too important to remember that they are not. And our troops deserve way more respect and a broader honest dialogue than that.
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Let's not pretend that they are fighting for some worthy cause. It is far too important to remember that they are not. And our troops deserve way more respect and a broader honest dialogue than that.

I second that. And at least some in Congress can stick by their decision and not try to put this all on Bush. They are all guilty right along with him.
yeah right....look what happened to the sister when she spoke out against the war...and now everyone is tucking their tails and realizing she was right....the same with the sister who was surgeon general...she spoke in a way the rest of the dumbazz country was not swift enough to comprehend, so those two sisters paid the price for everyone else's know damn well if you do not support the flag-waving murderous death-penalty lovers in this country it is political suicide...and you can best believe most politicians will save their careers before they do what is correct...just look at dubya and the right-wing.....but they knew they backdoored into office and was living on borrowed time.....that is why they gutted the country in less then two years......sent all of clinton's progress down the tubes.....with a quickness.......
Rev. Al said "we're gonna ride this donkey as far as it will take us" or something like that. I'm gonna walk behind the donkey and take a detour as soon as it drops a load.

I don't see anything but evil in this day and time. Kerry's Bush's third cousin, they both belong to a satanic org. called "Skull & Bones" and people are getting killed by the thousands.

It would seem to me, as "educated" as these "leaders" proclaim to be, they'd find a way to hold an international conference and talk out these differences that cause so much grief and sadness amongst the masses. It doesn't seem to me, to benefit anyone that populations have to die to fill the pockets of these "leaders" wherever they may live.

I have a 12 page article on the "Horrors of War" that the veterans of WWI wrote in their diaries describing their circumstances as they happened during that time.

The website is:
Nothing's changed except the weaponry. All for naught in my estimation. The blood and gore is unimaginable. That's not the reason I went through the painful hours of labor to being my children onto this planet, nor they theirs.

War, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.