Lola wrote:And how many lawmakers did block him at the time? Since most of them didn't, does that make them all unsuitable to handle their lawmaker responsibilities?
I wrote that it was "every lawmaker's obligation to block him from getting a freer hand still to do so," and absof*ckinglutely yes they failed that obligation. And it's an error major enough to disqualify someone for the Presidency, unless maybe if they recognized and acknowledged their fault long before running.
The Democrats in Congress in those days were a disgrace, overall. Too many of them let themselves be whipped ino inimidation by the Bush administration's blowhards, and/or were slaves to political expedience. I think you actually agreed with me on that back then (how soon we forget).
Across Europe, Latin America and the rest of the world, social-democrats, greens, even conservatives realised at the time that Bush was haranguing for war, and using false pretenses. It wasnt that hard to realise. Millions of us testified so at demonstrations. I'm sure you were there too.
A majority of the Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, failed the test. But even among the Congressional Democrats, it's hardly like
everyone voted like Hillary did. A sizable minority opposed the authorisation, and it included many Democratic luminaries.
Barbara Boxer voted nay. Lincoln Chafee voted nay, and he was a Republican! Talking of Republicans, Jim Jeffords, formerly Republican, voted nay too. Robert Byrd voted nay. Jon Corzine voted nay. Carl Levin voted nay. Ted Kennedy voted nay. Leahy voted nay. So did Feingold, and Durbin. And Bob Graham. Paul Wellstone. Debbie Stabenow.
They passed the test. It wasnt
that hard.
