What is the best way to hold the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war accountable?

Question

Its such an illegal war, or so I'm told, so whats the best way to hold the Democrats accountable for voting for the war (and the majority of Dems did)?

If we are to hold the Reps accountable, the Dems should follow suit!

Answer 1

Alex, excellent question!! All of you who insist this is Bush's war, please explain the following:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Answer 2

We private citizens can't do that.

It is up to our elected officials to do that, and since we just elected a majority of Dems in both houses, that's highly unlikely.

I'm a Republican, but I still have some sense of justice, and it wouldn't be fair to hold the Congress (both parties) responsible for the Administration's failed tactics and execution in Iraq.

The Congress didn't vote for the tactics and their execution in Iraq; they voted for the Pres. to declare war based on compelling evidence presented to them.

Let's get the story strait before we start pointing fingers.

Answer 3

What you have is the Democrats attempting to have it the two tactics. they like to be considered as opposing the conflict, yet they make the main of having it pass on. protection contractors donate a rather good variety of money to congress, so Democrats like getting as much as they are able to. some have protection appropriate industries of their back yards. AIPAC throws as much because it may so Democrats think of two times earlier attempting to severely stop the conflict. then you definately've Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman who only refuse to contemplate struggling with the conflict by using their undertaking for Israel. As for the leaders, Pelosi and Reid are approximately as vulnerable a tandem as i've got ever considered on the Hill.

Answer 4

Most democrats (like most Americans including myself) initially supported the war based on what we were told. We were definitely misled, if not lied to. Those that got the intelligence wrong have in my mind more to account for.

But to answer your question, the best way is to write/email them and ask why they voted for the war. Who knows, some may give you a straight answer. If they don't you could always vote for someone else. That's how democracy works.

Answer 5

Don't vote for them. But it isn't an illegal War. Post this stuff on Move on . org. The election is over!!! We will bring the troops home. Then New York will get bombed again by Al-Queda, when Iran tries out it's new Nuke.

Answer 6

lol. someone wrote. everyone believed the administration when they told them about the intell.. Do you seriously think these supposedly DUPED, politicians didnt get the see that same intell. are you that uninformed or are you just that nieve? "Reps had a majority of house, senate and executive so no dems could even look at information." lol

Answer 7

Yes, they did. Of course they were lied to by the administration but that may not be a good excuse.

Lets hear how you want to hold the rep. accountable the main reason for us being there then move on to the next group.

Answer 8

Well, first you hold hearings. Then, when the unredacted intelligence is viewed by the Democrats, you hold more hearings. Then you proceed with impeachment and prison terms, or just turn the guilty parties over to the Hague.

Answer 9

We should have held them all accountable and voted out every single incumbent. People are too hung up on this senior congressmen with experience, it should always be different people in office. New ideas, new faces, new ways of doing things. The same old same old is what gets us into trouble. People were to divided on my party is the best party as opposed to what would actually be good for the country.

Answer 10

Erm - most of congress voted for the war, based on the evidence (false as it turned out) provided by the Bush Administration.

That deception would make it prudent to pursue impeachment of president Bush.

As I recall President Clinton was impeached for receiving oral pleasure..

Bush is guilty of deceiving congress in order to invade a sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis...

I think that what Bush has done is a bit worse than what Clinton was impeached for...

I'd say impeach the source of the war, not the ones duped into it.

-dh

Answer 11

Hillary is still standing proud and supporting Bush in Iraq.
That's one reason she will be the next president.
Democrats went after Lieberman for supporting Bush, but they are frightened to death of Hillary.