NY Times' Herbert claimed few congressional Dems opposed Iraq war resolution; in fact, most voted against it
On the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert said: "The truth is that hardly anyone who was -- the Democrats in Congress, you didn't have a lot of opposition to that [Iraq] war resolution." In fact, a majority of congressional Democrats voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002. Of the 258 Democrats in Congress at the time, 147 voted against the resolution, while 110 voted for it. One Democrat did not vote.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the November 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
HERBERT: The truth is that hardly anyone who was -- the Democrats in Congress, you didn't have a lot of opposition to that war resolution. The Democrats were paranoid that this would be a cakewalk. They looked back to the first Gulf War, and a lot of Democrats felt that they were on the wrong side by opposing that war. They thought this was going to be easy, and so they didn't want to be on the wrong side in this war. And they did the same thing that Democrats do so often. They didn't, in many cases, vote their conscience.
Damn you, Librul Media!!!!!!
Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2003:
"I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference. It would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but if we had a much broader alliance and coalition."
Ok - Hilary voted for it. How does that refute or prove the statement made above is not false? Most Congressional democrats did vote against it - that is the truth. Hilary is one that voted for it and was in the Minority. The point of the post here was to show an all and out falsehood in the press. This is not about Hilary.
Of course Archfiend's post had a lot more substance to it.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I agree with the sentiment that Mr. Hebert expressed, and will be diligent for the rest of my life to oppose all that would indulge the Premptive War Doctrine.
I stand with the Democrats to restore our democracy because of the 147 Democrats who voted their conscience instead of the entire Republican Party less Ron Paul!
Pragmatics rule the day, but the day will come when democracy, good old American Democracy will be again the rule of the day!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Of course YOURS had none at ALL. The topic is correct he is correct your picking Hillary out of the bunch has nothing to do with the FACT the majority of Dems voted against the IWR
Re: Hilary
You're not refuting anything that was said here. Or presenting any information that isn't readily available. We ALL know Hilary voted for the war.
And she was in the minority. At least amongst Dems. Counter to what our friend from the NYT says.
And how much of her decision (and that of other dems, and no doubt some republicans) was based on fauly info / intel ?
If congress knew then that there were no WMD's, alomst NO ONE would have supported the war. Bush would have looked like (more of) an idiot for even considering it.
And how much of her decision (and that of other dems, and no doubt some republicans) was based on fauly info / intel ?
I wish I could give her a pass on that, but I don't buy it. She should have known MORE than a lot of us simple folk who saw the way that Bush manipulated everything to ensure that he'd get to have his war.
Good point. But I'm even less inclined to give the Republican's a pass on using this point to somhoe justify their actions or show division among the Democrats or whatever.
But I do agree with your point - which is why I'm an Obama man. Niether he nor I ever supported the Iraq war. Wise man, he is.
Dogrun, since you seem to want to remind everyone that Hillary voted for the war you might want to remind Karl who started the war. He seems to want to re-write history and say that Congress pushed Junior into war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/rove-congress-pushed-bu_b_74039.html
man,I really respect Mr. Herbert. I think he's an honest man who speaks from the heart and highlights injustice and misery that is ignored in our national media. I'm disappointed, but I hope that Mr. Herbert finds a way to correct himself.
Hi Billybob !
Well most Dems in the senate voted for it --29 to 21. The house vote was 126 to 81. Sure this is a mischaracterization, but there wasn't a huge outcry against the war by many top Democrats. Usual MM nitpicking.
usual attempt to ignore the situation by calling it "nitpicking".
usual mindless post that doesn't talk about the issues
Look, was what the guy said exactly true? No. Was it misrepresenting what actually happened? I guess so. But was there a big outcry from leading Democrats when bombs were dropping? Not that I can recall. Senate Dems actually voted in favor of the bill. That's usually where the most influence is. Maybe you can find a few reservations about the war from back then, but I don't remember much of an outcry. My memory could be wrong though.
"was it misrepresenting what actually happened? i guess so." thanks, mindless argument over.
oh and the "reservations"? maybe you forgot, but you quoted hillary above: "that is not my preference."
Let me refresh your memory, dog -
Congress voted for the authorization to go to war to give the President leverage to disarm Saddam through weapons inspections.
Well, guess what happened. Bush ordered out the inspectors and sent in the troops. Let the quagmire begin. He also sent Powell up to lie to the UN, a body that he subsequently called "irrelevant" if they didn't support his Middle East money grab.
Let us also recall that this was in the runup to the 2004 elections and the republic propaganda machine was in full force. This propaganda included questions of patriotism and who or which party is better at keeping America safe and who is tougher on terroism.
Many a dem go caught in this no-win situation and many of those who voted against the war were indeed vilified by the right.
This is not to suggest that they shouldn'g have had the cajones to do what is right, but the mindset of what waa tranapiring at the time. As far as Rove now claiming it was congress who forced the liar in chief into this war I am just astounded blrble blrble drool.
Usual stupidity from you. He ABSOLUTLY misrepresented the vote. That is indisputable and THAT is what the topic is about it isnt nitpicking to expose exactly this kind of misinformation. It is what this site DOES. You can TRY to change the topic to how vocal the Dems were but its not the TOPIC, which is Herbert basically LIED.
Solon sir, with whom I almost always agree: How do you know that Herbert lied? To me that means he said this knowing it wasn't true. More likely -- Herbert is a true liberal -- he meant to say most Democrats in the Senate, or he didn't remember correctly.
Because he didnt even come CLOSE. He wasnt saying that a majority of Dems supported the IWR he as saying HARDLY ANY OPPOSED IT
"The truth is that hardly anyone who was -- the Democrats in Congress, you didn't have a lot of opposition to that [Iraq] war resolution."
That statement isnt just wrong it is WAY wrong. Also he is a professional journalist. Unless he retracts what he said, when he is stating things as FACT he has an obligation to KNOW they are facts. THAT is his job.
Look, was what the guy said exactly true? No.
You had me at "No."
It's a known fact that most dog runs are full of feces.
Including this one.....
Still a nonsequitur. Still means NOTHING. The majority of Dems voted against it.
I wonder what you would consider not to be nitpicking DR.
I'm not having any problem with the item. Its classic conservative missinformation as far as I'm concerned.
MM frequently goes something like this:
"Media Matters for America claimed that most Democrats voted against the Iraq war, without noting that a majority of Senate Democrats actually voted for the war, as is documented here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 "
But they didn't say that, and you're leaving out some fairly important information. I'll take the confirmable Media Mattesr vote count for house dems at 110 for and 147 against. Toss in the senate vote (using your numbers) of 29 dems for and 21 dems against. Looking at the whole democratic side of congress, that totals up to 167 democrats voting against the bill and 139 voting for it. By any rational standard involving math as we typically know it, that woudl mean that the majority of democrats in congress voted against the bill, which proves Media Matters point to be accurate. It also proves you to be either a)uniquely lacking in basic math and logic skills or b)intentionally attempting to mislead (and doing it rather poorly I might add).
So what's your point?
My point is to illustrate the kind of pointless thing MM gets all the libs into a tizzy about. I have come to this site because I enjoy seeing all the crazy leftists get all bent out of shape about the smallest things.
And it's fun to get you folks all riled up so easily by my posts. Thanks for the enjoyment (I hope at your expense). But, alas, I have grown weary of spending time here that could be put to much more important use. I will no longer post on this site. There are far too many mindless lemmings here that outweigh the few intelligent posters. Goodbye All
Oh keep coming back. We enjoy the stupidity that posters like you pretty much define. It is hilarious. Your ignorance is a vast source of amusement. If you really think you RILE anyone, well that is just one more in a long line of delusions someone as dumb and brainwashed as you is bound to have. Keep bringing the laughs to us.
Which in NO WAY disputes what MMFA said. Herbert said very FEW DEMS opposed the IWR, not a minority of Dem SENATORS. Try to keep up.
The information is on the House of Representative not the senate.
I didn't know any democrats were in the senate. When did they organize as a political party? They trying to syphon off votes from the Democratic Party?
Actually, the numbers above refer to both the House and the Senate together. 126 Representatives and 21 Senators from the Democratic party, totaling 147 Congressional Democrats, voted against the resolution. That's almost 60%, which is well over the number to define a majority of Congressional Democrats!
herbert is in general a good guy and good columnist. he didn't get this one quite right.
Yep - the Majority of Senate Democrats voted for the war - and quite a few Dems in the house as well - Herebert misspoke, and it would have been better if he would have just noted that in addition to most Democratic senators, "quite a few," Democratic house members went along.
Herbert is an excellent commentator, and excellent reporter.
Here we go. Karl Rove floated the new BIG LIE a few days ago, now his little gremlins are busy trying to plant it in the brains of the mindless masses. Their apparent goal is to absolve President Numbnuts and Rich Cheney of any responsibility for the stinking pile of scheit they've created in Iraq. This leads me to think that they don't believe their own hype about recent "success" over there. Maybe they have reason to think that the lid is about to blow off...or maybe they don't want this issue on their backs going into the election...who knows?
As for Democrats not objecting strongly enough...I have to agree. They are, in general, a spineless lot. The Jingofascists were roaming the streets and taking heads in the months after 9/11, and only the gutsiest politicians dared to speak out against them.
And everyone knows that the NYT is a bastion of conservative disinformation!
Mr Herbert is trying to spin the Dems a new position now that the war in Iraq is being won. Of course, the Dems voted for it! It's a winner! But in reality, the Dems put aside any patriotic notions they might have sensed and voted their party line - Hate Bush! The political savvy ones (Hillary, et al) voted for it b/c they were afraid it might succeed without them.
There's not an ounce of integrity in the whole Dem party.
The funniest part of this is that in a few months, the US will be voting for a new president, and 'I hate George Bush' will not be on the ballot.
Oops, bye-bye, Dem fringe
I hope you've had fun complaining about your friends!
The funniest part of this is what a MORON you are. The GOP forgot any CLAIM to integrity and drove us headlong into a lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy which they still support in the zeal to see Americans DIE.
Its always so nice to discourse with you Solon, your wit is so original.
Your sad posts dont rise to a level that DESERVES any originality. It is just boring to read your usual regurgitations of hiveming talking points we have heard many times before about Dems being unpatriotic having no integrity and other such blatant mindless insults. So what makes you think you deserve anything else in response?
Nice try, EdRoss'sWeiner...but Karl Rove shoveled his own version of this lie into the mix days ago. Is he trying to cover for the Democrats, too?
"I Hate Bush" resulted in not ONE incumbent democrat congressman losing his/her seat in 2006. Well, it might have been "I Hate the War", but essentially that is the same thing.
What makes you think that it won't happen again in 2008? Has Bush finally acquired a conscience? Has Cheney stopped looting the Middle East? Has anything productive for the common man come out of this abysmal administration?
No. No. No.
The only way the Repubs are going to prevail is by lying - see Rove's latest bit of revisionist history.
I watched the clip of Bob Herbert. I've read many of his pieces in the NYT and generally agree with his sentiments. I actually can see what he's driving at here - the overall point being that when push came to shove enough congressional dems fell in line with the republicans to get that resolution through because they were scared of not being re-elected etc. I give all the credit to the ones that were out there expressing their views against that resolution. I can't argue that technically MMFA is correct. I just think that Herbert is expressing his feelings that more dems should have been vocal about being against that resolution at the time.
IMHO this is a draw. Hopefully Herbert will address this/clarify his position with this statement. I find myself highly critical of the dems in general because of the disturbing pattern of them "rolling over" whenever stands need to be taken against this administration.
"IMHO this is a draw. Hopefully Herbert will address this/clarify his position with this statement.
Since when is correcting a misstatement a "draw."
If correcting misinformation isn't a win for MMFA then how do you define "win."
Herbert's intent was to present a partisan opinion that Dems so often don't vote their conscience. That's a fundamental attack on the Democratic Party and its members.
Unfortunately for him and his integrity, his opinion was based on a false premise that was easily disputed by Media Matters. MM aren't nitpicking a little misinformation in this post, they are invalidating a blatantly partisan attack on an entire political party.
As for whether Herbert is lying or incompetent? Who cares?
Congress abdicated their sole authority to declare war to George Bush when they passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.
The legislation is just unconstitutional at best.
What makes it butt ugly dumb is that they gave their authority to declare war to the 'Decider Guy'.