http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7qlGXt6vg

This is in no way intended to legitimize the war or defend the huge mistakes that have been made during it. I just feel that there is this huge perception that Rebublicans are "Neo-Con war mongers who want to take over the world for oil!!" and that Democrats are so "Peaceful and Diplomatic!". It's simply not true. The biggest difference is that when shit hit the fan, one group wanted to run the other way and one group wanted to stand up to the fight. Like Mike Huckabee said refering to Iraq: "You break it, you buy it". We fucked up, so now we need to fix it. I can already hear it now: "Bush just lied to the Democrats about the WMDs so they would vote for war!!" Well no, they had the same intelligence reports that the president did and they came to the SAME conclusion.

12/15/2007 1:10:59 AM

...which means they were idiots.

Look, any interpretation is hardly charitable to the Democrats - they pretty much bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Which means either they're opportunistic hypocrites who happily support the war when public opinion is on their side and rail against it when it isn't, or they're such gullible dupes that they'll literally believe anything (including the unconvincing "evidence" put forth before the invasion).

Only a partisan hack would be calling the Dems heroes on this issue right now. But acting like the Republicans were valiant patriots for standing up to pick a fight with a country that pretty obviously posed no threat to us, well... Jesus, I don't even know where to go with that one. Get your head checked if you actually believe that one...

12/15/2007 1:18:21 AM

This is a new and refreshing take on a topic no one's ever thought to discuss before.

12/15/2007 1:24:20 AM

"Only a partisan hack would be calling the Dems heroes on this issue right now. But acting like the Republicans were valiant patriots for standing up to pick a fight with a country that pretty obviously posed no threat to us, well... Jesus, I don't even know where to go with that one. Get your head checked if you actually believe that one..."


Obviously I don't since I said we "fucked up". My point is, both sides of the aisle were on the same page until shit hit the fan. Think about it, if the war went smoothly and we were in and out with no WMDs, would the Dems still be saying "Ohh, there were no WMDs, no threat, blah blah!". Ofcourse they wouldn't. As the polls went down, so did Dem support, which is the case for most things.

[Edited on December 15, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : inserted quote]

12/15/2007 1:24:58 AM

Since we're playing in the land of hypotheticals now, do we assume this "cakewalk" is still costing us billions a month? Because if so, I can think of more than a few people that might still be bitching about the unnecessary cost of "liberating" other countries, particularly in light of the deficits they contribute to back home.

Oh, right. Deficits. Didn't Republicans used to care about those?

12/15/2007 1:30:13 AM

well it could be that saying Sadaam was allied with Bin Laden would be like China claiming Bush was allied with Castro since they are both N. American.

12/15/2007 2:52:36 AM

Umm...HUR you seem to have clicked the wrong thread to post your reply. Like usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic.

12/15/2007 10:28:54 AM

I actually recall quite clearly liberal citizens (and some conservatives) complaining that the dems weren't fighting hard enough to prevent the war and that many were in support of it. Everyone knows that the dems were involved in the runup to the war. No one is surprised by this.

The primary difference now is between those (mainly conservatives) who think we should keep fighting for what many (mostly liberals) consider a lost cause and unwinnable.

12/15/2007 11:30:54 AM

Quote :

"...which means they were idiots. Look, any interpretation is hardly charitable to the Democrats - they pretty much bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Which means either they're opportunistic hypocrites who happily support the war when public opinion is on their side and rail against it when it isn't, or they're such gullible dupes that they'll literally believe anything (including the unconvincing "evidence" put forth before the invasion). Only a partisan hack would be calling the Dems heroes on this issue right now. But acting like the Republicans were valiant patriots for standing up to pick a fight with a country that pretty obviously posed no threat to us, well... Jesus, I don't even know where to go with that one. Get your head checked if you actually believe that one..."

Thread over

12/15/2007 12:20:24 PM

Quote :

"I actually recall quite clearly liberal citizens (and some conservatives) complaining that the dems weren't fighting hard enough to prevent the war and that many were in support of it. Everyone knows that the dems were involved in the runup to the war. No one is surprised by this."

well anyone in the post 9/11 furor would have been labelled as supporting the "terrorist" or unpatriotic for voicing strong opposition to Bush's war resolution. While the right thing to do it would have hurt their chances of getting reelected in some districts.

12/15/2007 12:37:05 PM

Quote :

"I actually recall quite clearly liberal citizens (and some conservatives) complaining that the dems weren't fighting hard enough to prevent the war"

i know it sounds like nothing more than a "i told you so" now, and i also have no proof to back it up, but i was against this whole damn thing for months before the invasion. It didn't make sense then and the evidence was not compelling enough to warrant an attack.

12/15/2007 12:51:42 PM

^ Many people felt the same way. In fact, there were protests against the war before it started. I even went to one. (And I don't go to many protests.)

12/15/2007 2:24:51 PM

Quote :

"Look, any interpretation is hardly charitable to the Democrats ..."

I like how people on TWW think professional politicians make decisions the same way as, say, a typical college student -- they just go to a coffee shop with their friends and debate about it over a latte.

Elected politicians are actually delegates. They do vote for what they believe their constituency wants. Is the presumption, then, that the Democrats in office should have voted contrary to the will of the people who elected them, just because they personally thought it was the right thing to do?

12/15/2007 5:19:31 PM

Given that we live in a republic and not a democracy, we elect representatives to govern in our stead, not to act as a direct barometer of the daily political winds. The fact is that those who govern the best are actually willing to say, exhibit actual principles take a risk for the long-term good of their constituents, even if it is unpopular in the short term, and allow that decision to be evaluated when election time rolls around.

This, incidentally, is why we hold elections for Representatives every two years and not every two weeks.

12/15/2007 5:55:30 PM

Quote :

"They do vote for what they believe their constituency wants."

but whenever they don't vote for what their constituency wants, they claim that they're elected to vote how they see best with the information they have.
At least the president does that. You know, that's "leadership", making decisions that might not be popular, but what he thinks is best. If you have elected representatives just, heaven forbid, doing what the people want, they're bad leaders and have weak resolves, right?

12/15/2007 6:09:51 PM

Quote :

"or they're such gullible dupes that they'll literally believe anything"

well, the Dems are buying the global warming argument hook, line, and sinker, so...

12/15/2007 6:37:02 PM

Quote :

"Given that we live in a republic and not a democracy, we elect representatives to govern in our stead, not to act as a direct barometer of the daily political winds. The fact is that those who govern the best are actually willing to say, exhibit actual principles take a risk for the long-term good of their constituents, even if it is unpopular in the short term, and allow that decision to be evaluated when election time rolls around."

Well, I didn't say anything about representatives being a "barometer" of "daily political winds." Whatever that snooty phrase means. Talk about elitist!

Who really thinks that our delegates in Washington should, as a matter of good governance, completely ignore what their constituency thinks about a particular major issue? Especially one that involves sending our fellow people to die? Show of hands, please! Anyone? Anyone believe that's what the founding fathers intended?

12/15/2007 8:05:15 PM

if you don't understand what that phrase meant, then there is something wrong with you...

12/15/2007 8:15:02 PM

Quote :

" but what he thinks is best"

yeah whats best for his portfolio and Halliburtin's bottom line

12/15/2007 9:30:25 PM

Quote :

"Well, I didn't say anything about representatives being a "barometer" of "daily political winds." Whatever that snooty phrase means. Talk about elitist!"

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. You can't seriously tell me you've having trouble understanding such a simple concept, right?

Quote :

"Who really thinks that our delegates in Washington should, as a matter of good governance, completely ignore what their constituency thinks about a particular major issue? Especially one that involves sending our fellow people to die? Show of hands, please! Anyone? Anyone believe that's what the founding fathers intended?"

You do realize that these same Founding Fathers actually wrote entire treatises about the dangers of direct democracy, right? Or that the Senate wasn't originally directly elected? (Senators were appointed by state legislators). The point is that Congress should represent the interests of the people and clearly be accountable to them (hence, the whole idea of elections) while not necessarily being swayed by the day-to-day temperamental current of public opinion. Kind of the same way they instituted specific protections against raw majoritarian rule - you know, protections of the rights of minority, and all that jazz? Bill of rights? Sounding familiar?

(Hell, last time I recall, things like declaring war and sending folks off to die were also taken a lot more seriously in the Constitution than we treat them now...)

12/15/2007 10:44:07 PM

Quote :

"well anyone in the post 9/11 furor would have been labelled as supporting the "terrorist" or unpatriotic for voicing strong opposition to Bush's war resolution. While the right thing to do it would have hurt their chances of getting reelected in some districts. "

Wow, you just made my point. Even if they thought it was the right thing to do, they didn't do shit because it might have hurt their chances of getting reelected. This is what the majority of todays Democrats are all about (and a lot of Republicans too, don't get me wrong).

12/15/2007 10:50:54 PM

^^

OK -- and I still didn't say anything about Congress being swayed by "day-to-day" temperament. You're putting words in my (figurative) mouth.

The will of the people that drove Congress to vote for the War wasn't some "day-to-day" shift in opinion. It had legs. Any reasonable person can look at 2002 and see that voting against the resolution was political suicide. Your discussion about direct democracy versus representative is purely theoretical in this context.

Yes, in a broad sense the government is representative and people won't vote their local Congressman out over the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. But when the people have a voice -- when there is obvious and firm commitment by the people to a direction -- then Congress has to listen, or else their asses are out in the next election.

I suppose the Democrats could've all "made a statement" and waited for 2004 to be kicked out (not that 2004 was great for them anyway). But you'd think, maybe, that a representative democracy presupposes a certain level of intelligence and foresight.

12/16/2007 12:34:48 AM

Quote :

"Any reasonable person can look at 2002 and see that voting against the resolution was political suicide. Your discussion about direct democracy versus representative is purely theoretical in this context."

Let's put a historical case to the test, then. Our very second president, John Adams, was pressured into starting what would have been an utterly catastrophic war with the French during his own term. His party, the Federalists, were pushing him into it. The popular opinion was in favor of it. Instead, Adams pushed for peace - and ultimately lost his bid for re-election to Jefferson for it. (In somewhat of an ironic twist, in fact).

Now, the fact that Adams was voted out of office demonstrates that the system obviously responds to voter interest - Adams lost his job over an unpopular decision. But are you really going to say that Adams did the wrong thing by avoiding what may have been a ruinous and unnecessary war for the early republic?

Quote :

"Yes, in a broad sense the government is representative and people won't vote their local Congressman out over the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. But when the people have a voice -- when there is obvious and firm commitment by the people to a direction -- then Congress has to listen, or else their asses are out in the next election."

That would kind of be the point, yes.

Quote :

"I suppose the Democrats could've all "made a statement" and waited for 2004 to be kicked out (not that 2004 was great for them anyway). But you'd think, maybe, that a representative democracy presupposes a certain level of intelligence and foresight."

And clearly we see it doesn't. The fact that the Democrats are more worried about keeping their jobs than doing what's right is exactly what is wrong with the system: A government by professional legislators whose chief interest is in keeping their cushy positions of power rather than doing a good job as being elected representatives of the peoples' interests. This means actually going out on a limb now and then and doing something unpopular - and potentially getting fired - if it is in the best interests of their constituents. This, again, is why elections are every few years and not every few weeks.

12/16/2007 12:46:41 AM

^

Oh, these stories about John Adams -- I mean, come on, you're talking about a time when most of the population was disenfranchised and uneducated. If you want government by anachronism, by all means, keep pushing this viewpoint.

I don't see anything wrong with professional legislators who represent public opinion, any more than I think the Electoral College should remain some "elite" body that makes its own decisions regardless of how people vote.

But I suppose we are keeping nicely with the "elitism" theme in this thread, huh?

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 1:50 AM. Reason : foo]

12/16/2007 1:49:25 AM

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Democrats who voted for the war. I don't care that popular opinion was for it. Most people also believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They didn't have accurate information.

And that's without getting into my general distaste for representative democracy.

12/16/2007 1:50:34 AM

^^ So you're not even going to bother to answer my question, much less address my actual point, right?

Figures.

12/16/2007 1:55:12 AM

^

What question? Whether I thought Adams did the right thing? Sure. Then again, I suppose he could've also ended slavery while he was at it, but that might have been a tad too unpopular, huh?

12/16/2007 2:00:30 AM

^ But I suppose advocating legislators doing the "right thing" then, against the current of popular opinion and upon pain of potentially being voted out of office, is an "elitist" sentiment, isn't it?

I mean, really. According to your own logic, Adams should have pushed gung-ho for a popular but potentially disastrous war for the United States, and damn the consequences. He instead did the right thing (within his capacity) and avoided an unnecessary blunder, even though it cost him his job. Yet according to your logic, this makes him elitist - even as he did the right thing. So which is it, then? Should leaders be charged with doing the right thing and facing the consequences at election time, or simply govern by the weekly poll as you advocate? If you haven't noticed already, they can't do both.

Look, if maintaining a republic of elected representatives is so elitist, then let's just get rid of this whole "House of Representatives" thing altogether. We'll just vote on issues by direct election - text message polls, anyone? I mean, hell, it works for American Idol, and surely what's good enough for American Idol is good enough for the rest of us... right?

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 2:07 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2007 2:03:23 AM

^

Governing exclusively by direct election isn't practical for most things because there's a lot of administrative stuff that nobody really cares about. Bridges to Nowhere and such.

But, uh, I should point out that I live in a state that currently has a great governator because we used that evil, evil direct democracy process to kick out the previous one. Among other things. We also have a program that distributes volumes of information about issues and campaigns to people's doors prior to elections.

And again, I don't think the Adams thing means anything in this context. He was a president who was elected at a time when most people were disenfranchised and uneducated. How can you compare how the population would have voted then in a direct election with now? Adams was supremely educated compared to the population at large. Nor was there a mass media that covered political and international issues in detail, nor an internet. Or phones so people could take polls, for that matter!

So -- do I think we should move to some direct democracy system for everything? No -- but do I think that, in the age of mass media, polling, and an educated population, that our representatives should listen closely to us? Absolutely.

12/16/2007 4:54:14 AM

Obama was against the war from the start right?

12/16/2007 10:03:50 AM

^^ Is it at all possible for you to actually answer a point directly instead of copping out with irrelevant side-bars? Whether or not the population was "disenfranchised" or not has little to no bearing on what we should expect as the proper role of elected officials. Either they do what they see as the right thing for their constituents, even if it costs them their jobs, or they go along with whatever the political current of the day is. They can't do both.

So again, which is it? Do they do the right thing, even when it's unpopular, when it is in the larger interests of the nation? Or do the do what keeps them employed?

This really isn't that difficult of a question, which makes it all the more frustrating that you refuse to even address it.

12/16/2007 12:36:46 PM

Quote :

"Supplanter: Obama was against the war from the start right?"

Yes, but he's only been in the Senate since 2004 - so it doesn't exactly go as far. The guy hasn't exactly put his neck on the line opposing the war.

12/16/2007 12:45:52 PM

^^

Quote :

"which makes it all the more frustrating that you refuse to even address it."

Smoker4:

Quote :

" So -- do I think we should move to some direct democracy system for everything? No -- but do I think that, in the age of mass media, polling, and an educated population, that our representatives should listen closely to us? Absolutely."

God Almighty, are you a trained rat? Learn to fucking read!

So I assume you're the exasperating nut of the year who thinks because he's a grad student in <subject matter X>, he can condescend to people on teh intarnet?

Welcome to the Soap Box. Take a number, your niche has been filled by many before you.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM. Reason : foo]

12/16/2007 8:18:49 PM

Can you actually try not to be an arrogant ass with the barest ability to construct a sentence for just one post? Just one? Because you suck at this game.

I asked you whether representatives should do what is right for their constituents to the exclusion of what is immediately popular. Not just be responsive, but actively not do things which you yourself admit is the right thing to do. Is it that hard to actually answer the question directly? (You tell me, is it?)

And on the subject of "condescension," maybe if you actually demonstrated some small ability to understand words put together into sentences, the adults wouldn't find it necessary to talk down to you. Meanwhile, there's always Chit Chat. Why don't you try that, since it seems to be more at your level?

12/16/2007 9:51:40 PM

^The only one coming off as condescending is you. Smoker4 was well-respected up here long before you came along to throw your hissy fits.

12/16/2007 10:20:00 PM

It would appear the standard for respect here is astonishingly low, then.

Fuck off. Lecture someone else about hissy fits - I don't really give a shit what you have to say.

12/16/2007 10:48:29 PM

Quote :

""You break it, you buy it". We fucked up, so now we need to fix it. "

WE didn't do anything. This administration did, congress let it happen, and the judicial branch looked the other way. So fuck you, i'm not taking responsibility for someone else's bullshit policies.

and neo-cons are war mongers. that's not to say all republicans are neo-cons though. however, even more so than war mongers, they are power hungry and over the last roughly 50 years have done everything they can to centralize power in the executive branch.

unitary executive theory, read about it, then read the constitution and federalist papers. then realize the damage that's been done.

12/16/2007 11:43:10 PM

Great video.

12/17/2007 4:14:30 AM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, there's always Chit Chat. Why don't you try that, since it seems to be more at your level?"

Ouch. The graduate student evokes the language of the unholy Chit Chat to demean his fellow Soap Box debater! Such pain! Oh the humanity!

*insert other Dwight Eisenhower-esque phrases here

Let me give you a hint how I think -- there's this law I like:

Quote :

"Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."

You're the latest exasperating nut. You guys come and go on these boards. Take a number!

12/24/2007 5:57:50 AM

You appear to already be a victim of your own rule, seeing as you can't even tell the difference yourself.

12/24/2007 10:45:39 AM

Quote :

"He was a president who was elected at a time when most people were disenfranchised and uneducated. How can you compare how the population would have voted then in a direct election with now?"

See my last post. Most Americans considered Saddam responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

12/24/2007 5:55:09 PM

^

So are you saying most Americans are stupid? Well, in that case, we can just get rid of the whole "voting" thing and call it a day.

Also that's not true -- a majority of Americans believed, in 2003, that Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. These days it's around 40% so I don't think that's "most" people.

12/24/2007 7:00:01 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying most Americans are stupid?"

At the time, at least, they had inaccurate information.

Quote :

"Well, in that case, we can just get rid of the whole "voting" thing and call it a day."

I don't believe anyone should ever be able to vote a war into being. I'm also no fan of representative democracy. Accepting the system as it is, I still don't see why I should vote for a person who made a terrible but initially popular decision. I'm sure they thought it made sense at the time. They were wrong. I haven't forgotten.

Quote :

"Also that's not true -- a majority of Americans believed, in 2003, that Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. These days it's around 40% so I don't think that's "most" people."

I used the past tense.

[Edited on December 24, 2007 at 10:01 PM. Reason : English]

12/24/2007 9:59:43 PM

"break it buy it" in this situation is the dumbest shit of all time.

12/25/2007 3:03:53 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying most Americans are stupid? Well, in that case, we can just get rid of the whole "voting" thing and call it a day."

That's some shady argument all the way around.

By and large, people are stupid -- or at least, enough of them are sufficiently stupid to necessitate government. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Well, go ahead ans substitute "geniuses" for "angels," and the point stands. The whole reason we have government is to mitigate the consequences of human fallibility and stupidity.

(I'd like to plead with GoldenViper for just a moment not to start in about how we don't need government and everything would be hunky-dory if we lived in happy little communes or however else he wants to describe his utopian vision for mankind.)

We keep the elections around because they seem to have done a pretty fair job at putting above-average people in charge. As flawed as the general population might be, it has at least enough sense to recognize capable leaders -- not exceptionally capable in most cases, but probably more so than the average.

---

The reason I disagree with your point that originally started this discussion -- namely that, as delegates, our representatives have the duty to follow our will whenever it is clearly voiced -- boils down to a question of available information. This is not simply referring to what the American public could have but failed to discover on its own. With an election to Congress or the Presidency comes access to information that is outright kept from the general population. For them to ignore their more intimate knowledge of the situation in order to represent their constituency, which is for all intents and purposes living in a fantasy, strikes me as irresponsible.

None of that necessarily refers to the Iraq war specifically, for the record.

12/27/2007 2:22:16 AM

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

12/28/2007 11:27:26 AM

Quote :

"(I'd like to plead with GoldenViper for just a moment not to start in about how we don't need government and everything would be hunky-dory if we lived in happy little communes or however else he wants to describe his utopian vision for mankind.)"

Denied. Life without masters wouldn't be paradise, but it would be better. Labeling anarchism as a naive utopian vision is a common and fallacious way to dismiss the ideology.

12/28/2007 1:50:04 PM