I voted for war...to avoid war...

[dannubis]

So recap...

The past 8 years you (= the American public) were lied to, pissed upon, abandoned when you needed help, ridiculized, ... by the current presidency and when a lowly senator who is known for having a smaller brain than an ant says something stupid it is something to get all worked up about ?

You are strange.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Vanguard

Given that reality, how can you complain when some of the legislators were actually credulous enough to believe that the President wasn't an absolute lying bastard?

Easy - legislators aren't supposed to be credulous nitwits.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by dannubis
So recap...

The past 8 years you (= the American public) were lied to, pissed upon, abandoned when you needed help, ridiculized, ... by the current presidency and when a lowly senator who is known for having a smaller brain than an ant says something stupid it is something to get all worked up about ?

You are strange.

When that "lowly senator"

1) aided and abetted the lying, abandonment, ridicule, and water sports by going along with the president; and
2) is now the senator with the greatest influence in Congress on matters of foreign affairs; and
3) is running for president himself

then it's worth at least calling him on it, yeah.

[Pekka]

.. is that the best he can come up with? I mean, why not just admit that he was under the pressure to vote for it and he crumbled under it? OR that he wanted to vote yes because he was for it at the moment.

At least it would make sense.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Not so much "admitted" as "caught"

IIRC, it was a law review article he [cough] wrote [cough] while in law school.

He also stole a British Labour Party candidate's speech and used it in the 1988 campaign until someone (I think it was a Dukakis campaign person) called him out on that.

He's also the one who tried to appeal to Indian voters by telling them that he always sees them running 7-11s.


He's just a hopeless senile idiot, and that's pretty much that.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


23 Senators -- 21 Dems, one Republican, one Independent -- refused to believe the President and/or refused to believe that the best way to prevent war was to authorize it. So, yes, at the very least I can complain that the 29 Dems who voted in favor were either either dumber or more craven than their colleagues.

Easy - legislators aren't supposed to be credulous nitwits.

True, true. But it isn't like Bush was a door-door Bible salesman or a three-card monte dealer. When you are a legislator and the President of the United States comes to you and assures you that he needs war authority to avoid war, you can't blame the legislator for extending a presumption of honor and good intentions to the Chief Magistrate of the Republic.

Of course Bush had no intention of avoiding war, and his assurance was therefore dishonorable and badly intended. But you can hardly blame Biden for believing Bush's lies.

Sure, the guy who gets conned bears some of the responsibility for the con job. But fundamentally it is the con man who is to blame.

After all, there are plenty of people who voted for W. in 2004. And that is after he was revealed to be a liar, a strategic incompetent and a general idiot. Go figure.

[Arrian]

Rufus

Biden

The 23

-Arrian

[Berzerker]

When you are a legislator and the President of the United States comes to you and assures you that he needs war authority to avoid war, you can't blame the legislator for extending a presumption of honor and good intentions to the Chief Magistrate of the Republic.

Bush told Biden he was voting to avoid war? That isn't what Biden said...

Of course Bush had no intention of avoiding war, and his assurance was therefore dishonorable and badly intended. But you can hardly blame Biden for believing Bush's lies.

What assurance? Its pretty clear Bush and his cronies were not interested in resuming the inspections. Biden aint no innocent victim of fraud...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Vanguard

True, true. But it isn't like Bush was a door-door Bible salesman or a three-card monte dealer. When you are a legislator and the President of the United States comes to you and assures you that he needs war authority to avoid war, you can't blame the legislator for extending a presumption of honor and good intentions to the Chief Magistrate of the Republic.

Of course Bush had no intention of avoiding war, and his assurance was therefore dishonorable and badly intended. But you can hardly blame Biden for believing Bush's lies.

Yes I can. First, we have opposition parties for a reason. Second, Congress is the Executive's equal, not its subordinate. It's the duty of a senator in the opposition to scrutinize and be skeptical of the Executive on a matter of this importance.

Sure, the guy who gets conned bears some of the responsibility for the con job. But fundamentally it is the con man who is to blame.

Actually, no. the way a classic con works is that the con man exploits the venal self-interest of the vicitim -- typically, his greed, but here his vaulting ambition and lack of integrity. so I can blame the conned -- the con man can't pull it off without the conned's self-deceiving willingness to believe.

After all, there are plenty of people who voted for W. in 2004. And that is after he was revealed to be a liar, a strategic incompetent and a general idiot. Go figure.

First, I actually expect a senator to be more thoughtful and better informed than the average voter; that's the whole premise of a Republic. Second, the sheer number of idiots in the world does not excuse idiocy.

[Berzerker]

hehe

[Vanguard]

How could Biden---- or any other legislator----- tell that Bush didn't intend to negotiate with Saddam? We only know that now that he........ didn't negotiate. It isn't like Biden could research the subject or anything.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Vanguard
How could Biden---- or any other legislator----- tell that Bush didn't intend to negotiate with Saddam?

I don't know.

How could the public opinion in the frigging entire world outside the US tell that Bush to negociate with Saddam?

[Berzerker]

How could Biden---- or any other legislator----- tell that Bush didn't intend to negotiate with Saddam? We only know that now that he........ didn't negotiate. It isn't like Biden could research the subject or anything.

Because the Repubs and especially the Bushies were onboard for regime change, that was the congressional mandate from '98 pushed thru by the Repubs. Was Bush negotiating with Saddam before Biden's vote? Nope...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What could Biden have done? What, oh what, could poor Biden have done? Maybe said this:

I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.

So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.

I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.

And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.

We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.

On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.

Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs.

So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.

My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.

After all, that's what his fellow Democratic Senator Russ Feingold did, right before voting "no." Biden could have said it, too; he's not above plagiarism, after all. But he didn't even have to think or speak for himself; all he had to do was listen to his smarter colleagues.

BTW, Feingold's entire statement is here: http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/spee...002A10531.html

[Arrian]

Abso****inglutely.

-Arrian