Should Dems who gave * a blank check step aside?

[CatWoman]

Or should Joan Walsh shut the fuck up??

Sept. 5, 2003 | I never agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I really had to grapple with his Friday column, assessing Sen. John Kerry’s failure to catch fire with Democratic voters this year. The dark, dyspeptic Krauthammer is of course rooting for Kerry and all Democrats to fail, so you have to read the column that way. But he put his finger on Kerry’s toughest task: Trying to act like he always opposed the Iraq war, even though he gave Bush a blank check to wage it. In his campaign kickoff Tuesday, Krauthammer noted, Kerry "claimed that he had voted just to ‘threaten’ war with Iraq, which is an odd way to characterize voting in favor of a resolution that explicitly authorizes the president to go to war if and when he pleases."

Thursday night’s debate raised the same tough issue for all the Democratic presidential candidates. It may well be looked back upon as a turning point for the party, when even its most pro-war contenders savaged the president’s disastrous, bloody war against Iraq. But even for a Democrat, the scene was a little unsettling. Relative hawks Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman were attacking Bush’s war, even though last year, they tried to set themselves apart from more dovish Dems by enthusiastically defending it. And Kerry and Sen. John Edwards, whose support was more nuanced but whose congressional votes for Bush’s blank check last October counted just the same, joined them in the Bush-bashing.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/05/walsh/index.html

[wtmusic]

1. No

They should stew in their own contradictions for a while longer.

;-)

[TomNickell]

87. No.

It's more complicated than that. And too easy on those who didn't have to cast a vote (Dean and possibly Clark).

* was clearly planning to start a war with or without congressional support (a President can do that). The only chance for peace was for S. Hussein to comply with inspections and undercut any rationale for invasion. A straight NO vote might just have encouraged Hussein to think he could stonewall.

There -was- a rational case for pressuring Iraq. Competetently applied, pressure could very likely have removed Hussein without war.

In the end, Iraq mostly cooperated and * invaded anyway. -That- is indefensible and incompetent.

[Cocoa]

2. Joe Scarborough has been making the same argument

saying the dems who voted for the resolution don't have the right to criticize the war. It's only convincing until you think about it for more than three seconds, then it starts falling apart.

[Terwilliger]

4. they really don't have the right

because they didn't question the war BEFORE they made it happen...they waited until THEY made a mistake in supporting Bush's barbarism to claim that they were "misled"

I think Democrats are "misled"

[TheYellowDog]

62. Last time I checked

EVERYONE in America had freedom of speech. Or do you not believe in freedom of speech, Terwilliger?

[StopThief]

81. Ummmm. . . . . .

Of course everyone in America has freedom of speech. AND everyone in America has the RIGHT to judge anyone on their speech. The two rights are inextricably connected.

[MrBenchley]

3. Option 2

"I never agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I really had to grapple with his Friday column"
That would be the one where the dishonest Mr. K is pretending that Chimpy faces animosity from his "enemies" on a level not seen since Nixon? (Gee, I yet to see $70 million spent by any Democrats on illegal phone intercepts and a bogus lawsuit. about anybody's sex life.)

The whole point of this campaign is that we want MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Americans to say "Hey, I was LIED to." Because we WERE.

[blm]

5. BLANK CHECK is a lie, a meme to embolden Bush

and diparage Democrats.

The Dems who negotiated with Bush PREVENTED him from getting the blank check he wanted. He was forced to include the UN and present evidence before them, allow inspectors first, and forbidden to include Iran and Syria in his battle plans.

[Terwilliger]

9. IOW, he was given a blank check for Iraq

and spin it any way you want...but the resolution gave him the authority to ignore the UN, which he did

[blm]

61. We aren't in Iran and Syria, are we?

Bush's credibility is in the pooper now because he was forced to overreach on the evidence presented. That's no small thing for an upcoming election. Loss of credibility makes it a wide open opportunity to get rid of Bush and other GOP seats.

[Cocoa]

11. another meme is that a different vote would have stopped the war

making the dems are just as responsible for the war as Bush is.

Fortunately, that one hasn't caught hold. This war is perceived as Bush's war all the way.

[Terwilliger]

16. oh yes...I mean, expecting the Democrats to have unity or a solid voice

that's just plain psychotic!

[Eloriel]

37. You're wrong on both counts

The Dems who voted for it ARE just as responsible as he is, especially morally and ethically. Morally and ethically might not count in your book, but they absolutely do in mine. We're talking the needless murder of thousands, the needless expenditures of many billions and on into the future, the irradiation for the next 4 billion years into the future of additional parts of Iraq, the senseless physical destruction of a sovereign nation, the besmirchment of our already not-very-pristine interntional reputation, the death of our sons and daughters and the traumatization and physical and/or psychological maiming of thousands upon thousands of others.

Hardly what I'd call, as someone else did, a "political miscalculation."

And there are plenty of people who perceive that to be the case, as opposed to this being "Bush's war all the way." I'm one of them. Plenty of DUers right there with me, AND plenty of pundits who rightfully point out that those pro-war Dems don't have much to stand on when they want to criticize what THEY failed to even inquire about beforehand.

Eloriel

[blm]

63. So you say.

.

[Egnever]

86. So I also say

.

[OldSoldier]

47. Nothing would have stopped this war

If Bush would have gotten a "no" vote on the war from Congress, he'd have launched anyway. You know he would have. Remember: this guy would be slopping his pigs in Crawford right now were it not for the seventeen known felonies that put him in the White House.

But if he would have launched without the consent of Congress, he would have spent all his time talking shit about how unpatriotic those evil Democrats are.

And right now, I don't care if a Democrat voted for or against the war. What's done is done. What I care about is what said Democrat intends to do to shut down the war and give Iraq back to the Iraqis, hopefully in the same condition as we found it in before we started blowing it up.

[Cocoa]

53. I agree with that

the white house counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, I believe had begun making the case last summer that the president did not need congressional approval. Powell I think, or maybe Poppy, convinced Bush to go to Congress.

Just by coincidence, Gonzalez is hosting "Ask the White House" today, and I asked him about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=281324

[Terwilliger]

60. I see, so the Dems KNEW they could use their vote to protest Bush's plans?

YET AGREED WITH HIM ANYWAY?!?!?!

Yep, the Democrats who voted YES are War Criminals and they should be sent to the Hague with George W. Bush.

[Terwilliger]

58. SAME CONDITION?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HOW IN THE FUCK DO YOU PLAN ON BRINGING BACK THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THE FUCKING DEAD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The ability of Americans to have no other interest outside of themselves is OUTRAGEOUS :grr:

[Arianrhod]

68. No, nothing would've stopped it

It was preplanned long before * ever took the WH (egged on the way in his limousine).

However, I do care about Democrats having voted for it. That vote was a transparent and useless attempt to boost their chances of holding onto their offices. That's why the Repubs brought it to the floor just before the election--to deliberately place the Democrats in a very difficult position. Everyone believed at that juncture in time (the country having been fomented into a raving war frenzy by *'s incessant drumbeating/race baiting) that a "no" vote was virtual political death. So--I believe--many of them cast the politically expedient vote. And some of them now regret having done so.

So I understand. I sympathize. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to just sweep it all under the rug. That's why I won't work in the primaries for any candidate who voted "yes". I don't particularly care what his other positions may be; IMV, he's already shown himself to be spineless. And if we don't take Congress (not a mean feat), a spineless President would not be of much use to us.

If one of these candidates happens to take the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote * out of office. Getting rid of this immoral administration is the first step to returning the country to sanity. But it's going to take much, much more than just occupying the WH again. I'm not sure I trust a "yes" candidate to do what needs to be done once that occupation is accomplished, especially if it happens to be in the face of a hostile Congress.

And God help us all if it turns out to be Lieberman (R-Wannabee).

[unfrigginreal]

18. Hogwash!

You keep harping on that "negotiated with Bush" meme as though their were some truth to it. The Democrats that gave Bush authorization knew, just as you and I did, that Bush was hellbent for war and was going in.

Our party let us down in the runup to this war...they shelved all debate, because of their fear of facing the electorate in 2002, while questioning the validity of attacking Iraq. The result was 60% of the public believing that Sadaam had connections with Al-Quida and that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. We all know how the 2002 elections went.

Our party made a huge political miscalculation in supporting this misadventure in Iraq. It serves those, that participated in it, right. War decisions should NEVER be based on politics, and if you find that your opponent is politicizing them, then you go on attack not support.

[blm]

20. Then you don't know what Bush wanted

and can't process facts. I'd like to see you point to ONE thing I said and PROVE that it is "hogwash"...go ahead...you like to give YOUR view but never base it in any of the actual FACTS.

Sorry, but you can work on that. Educate yourself to the TRUTH and not just the way Rove wanted that resolution spun in the press to make it sound like a huge victory for Bush.

[unfrigginreal]

22. Here's some truth for you...

Kerry voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war. I won't use Krautnumbnuts as my source, I'll use Robert Byrd.

Link for source:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1004-02.htm

[sangh0]

28. LOL!

You claim possessing of the "facts" and "truth", but all you did was repeat propoganda ("a vote for the resolution was a vote for blank check war")

There's not one "fact" in your post. Your link points to an opinion.

[unfrigginreal]

30. So...Robert Byrd is pushing propoganda?

Seems to me that you would have a better fit in the party if you said that of Bush.

[sangh0]

33. Yes

and it's not the only propoganda he pushes. He claims that dumping the tops of mountaintops into streams (what coal mining corps like to do) is NOT harmful to the environment.

[unfrigginreal]

36. Wow!

Kerry supporters sure are interesting folks!

[sangh0]

39. Haven't you ever heard of this issue?

It was in the news during the Clinton impeachment process. Clinton agreed to continue allowing coal corps to dump mining waste in streams in exchange for Byrd's support.

Do you think polluting streams is a "Good Thing"?

[CWebster]

48. that wasn't the argument, sangha

desperate measure?

[Terwilliger]

23. I suppose you have me on ignore, blm

but Kerry knew what Bush wanted, what he wanted, what Democrats wanted, and he knew the specifics of Bush's willingness and preponderance to lie and obfuscate

Kerry knew exactly what he was doing and he was wrong to do it.

What does John Kerry think of Joe Biden's hearing, where he disallowed ANY discussion of opposition to war in Iraq? Kerry and Biden dont ever talk to each other? BULLSHIT! They know exactly what each other are doing and plan to do. Kerry was in the Biden/Lieberman/Wolfowitz camp, and he acted just like someone in that camp would.

"Saddam! Saddam bad! My authorization of his chemical weapons good! My authorization of Bush I and his deadly sanction regime that would never cause Saddam to be thrown out good! My claiming that Clinton was wrong to bomb Kosovo on his own go--er, bad...er, GOOD! Good!"

:eyes:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

38. Here you go, proof that what you said is hogwash!

This is what you said:

The Dems who negotiated with Bush PREVENTED him from getting the blank check he wanted. He was forced to include the UN and present evidence before them, allow inspectors first, and forbidden to include Iran and Syria in his battle plans.

The bolded section is pure hogwash, and here is the proof, the resolution!:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The bold sections above show that Bush was specifically authorised to invade Iraq as long as he determined that diplomacy or other peaceful means were not enough to protect the security of the US or ensure the enforcement of all UN resolutions, and as long as the War on Terror was not affected.

No mention of having to "include the UN and present evidence before them" or "allow inspectors first".

The only thing you got right was that the resolution restricted him to invading Iraq only, which realistically speaking was all he really wanted anyway, after all there is not much oil in Syria or Iran.

So perhaps YOU should educate yourself to the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if you had never even read the resolution before. In fact if you had, that would mean your post was a lie, and I don't think you're a liar, you're just misinformed.

[sangh0]

40. It's proof that your post is hogwash

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

How was Bush* supposed to determine that going to the UN "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" UNLESS he actually went to the UN and tried to get them to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"?

[unfrigginreal]

42. Was Kerry too stupid to realize that Bush had no intention...

of seriously seeking UN involvement? Is that what you're trying to point out?

[sangha]

55. Trying to hide your mistake?

You said "No mention of having to "include the UN and present evidence before them""

The resolution REQUIRED Bush* to go to the UN because there would be NO OTHER WAY for Bush* certify that going to the UN would not result in the UN resolutions being enforced.

Furthermore, you provide additional evidence that the resolution FORCED Bush* to go to the UN. You say "Bush had no intention of seriously seeking UN involvement?". And yet, Bush* ended up at the UN. If he had no intention of going there, and the resolution didn't force him there, then how did he end up at the UN?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. No, it is you who is trying to hide a mistake.

The resolution REQUIRED Bush* to go to the UN because there would be NO OTHER WAY for Bush* certify that going to the UN would not result in the UN resolutions being enforced

Yes, if Bush had to "certify" that going to the UN would not result in the UNSC resolutions being enforced, then he would be REQUIRED to go to the UN.

However, he did NOT have to CERTIFY it, all he had to do was inform Congress of "his determination". That means something very different. Your version means there had to be some independant verification, whereas the actual resolution does not require independant verification, it only required that Bush DECIDE that it couldn't happen. How he came to that decision was left up to him.

Furthermore, you provide additional evidence that the resolution FORCED Bush* to go to the UN. You say "Bush had no intention of seriously seeking UN involvement?". And yet, Bush* ended up at the UN. If he had no intention of going there, and the resolution didn't force him there, then how did he end up at the UN?

Simple! DESPITE the resolution, there was an international outcry, with huge demonstrations and even allies threatening to try and block Bush's attempt to invade. If Bush had NOT at least PRETENDED to go to the UN, these nations could have passed a resolution AGAINST an invasion and left Bush in deep trouble.

He went to the UN not because he was forced to by the resolution, because he WASN'T, but because he was FORCED to by the international community, in order to head off any attempt to pass a resolution forbidding the invasion.

[sangha]

79. It doesn't add up

Certify or determine or whatever. Even without requiring any independent verification, if Bush determined that going to the UN was not going to work without actually going to the UN, then he would be discredited. Not only that, Bush* would appear to have such a weak case, that he was unwilling to make it to the world.

He went to the UN not because he was forced to by the resolution, because he WASN'T, but because he was FORCED to by the international community, in order to head off any attempt to pass a resolution forbidding the invasion.

Impossible. The US has a veto on the Security Council. And int'l public opinion didn't stop the invasion. Int'l public opinion doesn't force Bush* to do anything.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

83. The US cannot veto a resolution involving the US!

Certify or determine or whatever. Even without requiring any independent verification, if Bush determined that going to the UN was not going to work without actually going to the UN, then he would be discredited. Not only that, Bush* would appear to have such a weak case, that he was unwilling to make it to the world.

Bush DID have a weak case that he did not want to make to the world, which is why when he was finally forced to do so by international pressure HE LIED!

It was far better for him to say "we have secret information that proves Iraq is a threat, and we are going to act upon it" than for him to put forth the bullshit "case" that he eventually did. As it was, he was laughed out of the UN, figuratively speaking.

Impossible. The US has a veto on the Security Council. And int'l public opinion didn't stop the invasion. Int'l public opinion doesn't force Bush* to do anything

No, the US can not use it's veto on a resolution involving the US. If a resolution was put to the UNSC that forbid the UK and US from invading Iraq, the only permanent members able to participate in the vote, and therefore use their veto would have been France, Russia, and China. Do you think one of those nations would have vetoed it?

How international public opinion forced Bush to go to the UN, was that the Governments representing those people were sympathetic to the idea of such a blocking resolution. They had to be prevented from acting upon that sympathy, which, by the US presenting a case, they were. The UN was forced to consider the US case, and reject it, before any nation could propose a blocking resolution.

The UNSC then decided to send in the inspectors, which was the exact OPPOSITE of what Bush wanted, because they threatened to expose his lies, and did. Bush then said that the UN was lying, and told the inspectors they had to leave because he was going to invade. If Bush had not already gotten authorisation to invade Iraq, he would at that time have had to go to congress seeking that authorisation at which point the Dems could have pointed at the inspectors findings and said "you haven't made your case, in fact you have been proved wrong".

So in effect the resolution not only gave Bush full authorisation to attack Iraq, it also undermined the UN inspectors because Bush could safely ignore them without fear that their findings could be used to stop the war. The resolution basically said that it did not matter what Iraq did or said, or what the UN inspectors found or didn't find, Bush could invade Iraq.

That is what you have to consider when you make the claim that Kerry wanted Bush to go through the UN - the resolution made the UN irrelevant because Bush could ignore it and invade anyway - and Kerry voted for it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

50. Easy...

he sent a letter to the Speaker and the President pro tempore that said:

"I determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful measures will not adequately protect the security of the United States nor are they likely to lead to the enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.

I further determine that military action in Iraq is necessary as part of the War On Terror and that failing to take action immediately may harm that war."

That wasn't so hard. You many notice there is no aspect of the resolution that requires proof that "his determination" is true, just that he make it and present it to the Speaker and President pro tempore.

Next!

[sangha]

56. Then why did Bush* go to the UN

Bush* said he did not NEED to go to the UN. Bush* also said had no desire to go to the UN. So if he didn't need or want to go to the UN, then how did he end up going to the UN?

[Terwilliger]

59. HE DIDNT!

He was forced to allow inspectors in , but he NEVER had any incentive not to do exactly what he wanted. The Democrats gave him the power, and your complete and unequivocal spinning cannot save you.

[sangha]

66. Then why did Bush* go to the UN

I have a clear memory of Powell presenting Bush*'s case at the UN.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

72. Simple - he had to head off any attempt to pass a resolution...

forbidding the invasion.

If you read the Congressional resolution you will see that one of the only requirements placed on Bush was that ALL UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq be enforced. If a resolution had been passed forbidding the invasion of Iraq - as anti-war protesters were campaigning for, and as nations such as Germany and France seemed inclined to push in the UNSC, then Bush could NOT have legally invaded Iraq because by doing so he would be in breach of a UNSC resolution regarding Iraq.

He had to head off that possibility by going to the UN, but he never intended to abide by it's decision. He only intended to leave the UN stuck with having not authorised or forbid an invasion - which is what happened. The invasion itself came too quick after the failure of Powell's trip to the UN for an opposite resolution to be made - which was ONLY possible because he had already been given authorisation to invade by congress.

It was clear that the UN itself condemned the invasion, it just hadn't had time to put that condemnation in writing, and it was too late once the war began.

[sangha]

80. They couldn't pass that resolution

The US has a veto

[Devils Advocate NZ]

84. Yes they could.

No permanent member can veto a resolution involving itself. Thus neither the US or UK could veto a resolution specifically forbiding a US/UK invasion of Iraq.

[Terwilliger]

77. Bush went to the UN in September

Powell went and lied...completely lied...and you say he "went to the UN"

Just what planet do you live on?

[blm]

64. Wrong... how did Bush end up at the UN

overreaching in his evidence presentation?

What kept him from continuing on to Iran and Syria?

What put inspectors back in?

Those things didn't occur in a vacuum, they were PROMISED to those who negotiated. And both Kerry and Clinton put those promises in the Congressional record when they made their floor speeches.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

73. So why weren't these promises put into the resolution?

Why vote for Bush to be able to ignore the UN if he had promised to go to it? Surely they would have demanded that those promises be given legal weight?

They had the opportunity to ensure that Bush could not act without UN authorisation, but they didn't. Why?

Yes, they did prevent the war from spreading to the rest of the region, and I have never claimed otherwise, but to suggest that that somehow justifies voting for Bush to be allowed to invade Iraq is silly.

It is akin to saying "I voted for him to be able to murder the father, but not the mother and children too..."

It was still a disgrace, no matter how much worse it could have been.

[blm]

74. The way the process works

is that if you are one of the lawmakers stuck doing the negotiating it costs you your vote. They got the best they could up against an incredibly inflexible group of warmongers.

Bush is the one in serious trouble now, and it is due in no small part to those promises extracted.

[sangha]

82. Here's how it worked

IIRC, the House had passed a resolution that was written by the Bush* admin. There were 49 Republican Senators who were going to vote for a resolution that was far worse than the one that passed. DINO Sen. Zell Miller said he was going to vote for it too. Those 50 Senators, plus the vote of VP Cheney, would garauntee that Bush*'s resolution would pass.

However Bush*, wanting at the very least, a sheer patina of bipartisanship (which may have been a reaction to the backlash from his own labeling of his opponents as unpatriotic (remember Daschle's tantrum on the senate floor? "How dare you politicize the war?")), was willing to negotiate with Daschle, who was objecting the resolution. Then during the negotiations, Lieberman and Gephardt appeared at a photo-op to "stand shoulder to shoulder with the President", undermining Daschle's negotiations. But Daschle negeotiated some more, and had some of the most noxious language removed or altered.

Then it became a question of "Which resolution gets passed?" Does one grant Bush* a measure of bipartisanship and extract some compromises in return, or does one vote no and then watch as an even more dangerous resolution sails through?

There is no escaping the fact that if every single Democrat, with the exception of Zell Miller, had done as you wished and voted no, then the Senate would have passed a resolution that was far more dangerous than the one that did pass.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

85. Are you nuts? Are you really trying to tell me that Bush tried to...

save the Dems from embarassment?

What you are saying is that Bush had the votes to pass the resolution he wanted, but in order to claim bipartisanship he negotiated down to the resolution he got so that the Dems didn't look unpatriotic.

That is plain NUTS!

Remember, at the time, polls were saying he had majority support for the war, and once the resolution passed support went up. Why would he care if the Dems looked bad by voting no?

It seems Bush has suckered you just as much as he suckered the Dems who voted for the resolution. He put forth a proposal that was DESIGNED to be negotiated down so that he would end up with exactly what he wanted: the right to invade Iraq with no restrictions.

Look at the forces he had available to attack Iraq. Do you really think he would have risked an all out war with Iraq, Syria, and Iran (and probably every other Arab nation as well) by invading them all at once, or even sequentially? He never intended to go after Syria or Iran because they did not have what he wanted: Iraq's oil.

It is foolish to think that Bush got anything other than EXACTLY what he wanted out of this resolution.

[Mechatanketra]

75. No, blm, THAT is a lie.

Without the Iraq war resolution, Bush doesn't attack anything but his morning bagel. He can't. It's against the law. The Democrats who voted for it didn't take Iran and Syria off the table, they put Iraq on the table -- the table starts off empty.

And neither the Iraq resolution nor any of the backdoor handshakes that might have accompanied it forced him to do sh*t. Bush chose the pretense of UN cooperation as a PR gambit, and even if he had been "forced", his going to the UN is meaningless if it isn't coupled with a requirement to accept the UN's authority. Are we in Iraq under UN approval? No? Funny, that.

The Dems who thought they were negotiating with Bush got suckered. And so did you.

[blm]

76. Wrong. Bush HAD the votes for a REAL blank check.

Did you forget about Zell Miller and Lieberman?

Also, Clinton went into Kosovo without a resolution. It's the way it is. You don't like it, work to change it.

[Starpass]

6. Yep, and after they "stew in their contraditions" for awhile, they

should ask Howard to unseal his "secret Cheney like papers" in Vermont. You see, the writer of the article doesn't want to admit that there are a whole shitpile of Dems and Independents who supported the war 'cause they either wanted it OR they thought it meant support for our troops. Play to the vets, play to the Union boys, play to the Dems who have kids in the military, play to the military---and that's what what's his face is afraid of 'cause there are a zillion times more "war supporters" in the Dem Party than Dean's anti group.

[Terwilliger]

14. Dean's anti group?

There were 50,000 in the streets on October 26th of last year. They weren't a focus group, Starpass. They're groups of Americans who are coming to realize that Democrats are the same bloodthirsty imperialists that Republicans are.

[Starpass]

29. Geeee, I didn't know they were all Dean supporters>>>even the

ones in Britain, too??? I guess. And then when the first bombs dropped Bush's ratings and support for the war went up to the 70th percentile from barely 50-50. Like I said all Dems by no long shot are all anti-this war. You have vets, people with kids in the military, union workers, etc. who detest anyone who is anti because they think that that means anti-troop---just like the repukes think that way. And you won't rip that out of their minds. You also have to realize that half the population of the US of A is a slight bit more than 50,0000

[sangh0]

34. Get with the program Starpass!

Didn't you get the memo?

All Democrats oppose the war because pacifism is "core value" of the Democratic Party's "base". You remember the Democratic Party, right? You know, the ones who supported WWII, the Korean War, VietNam, GulfWar I, etc -- aka "the anti-war Party"

:-)

[blm]

65. The protests Dean didn't make time to speak at?

Not even once during the 6 months of protests?

The ones that Kucinich spoke at while Dean was anointed the liberal antiwar candidate by the media, raking in the liberal antiwar $$$$$$.

[sangh0]

7. Counter-productive

If the message being sent is that Dems will not vote for anyone who voted for the resolution, then you have eliminated any incentive for those candidates to oppose the invasion and criticize Bush* because you will have made it crystal clear that opposing the war will be seens as "too little, too late" and will not win your vote.

If they can't win your vote, then they will have no desire to listen to your demands. Politicians will only listen to those who offer them something. If you take your vote off the table, then what are you offering?

A: Nothing

[Terwilliger]

10. I'll take my vote elsewhere

then half-assed wonks will blame me and my vote for their loss

[sangh0]

13. Of course they should blame you

unless your vote is unimportant.

[Terwilliger]

15. hahah! So, if I vote for Dems and they lose, it's my fault

if I vote for someone else and Dems lose, I get blamed.

My vote is important to me. It's NOT apparently important to you.

[sangh0]

19. Is your vote important?

.

[Terwilliger]

21. of course not

I'm just a citizen. To Republicans and Democrats, I'm just chattle. Just like you sangha! :hi:

[Eloriel]

43. Yeah, Terwilliger, 'cause you OWE them your vote

Too bad you just don't get it.

/sarcasm

Eloriel

[HereSince1628]

8. No, they need to make convincing arguments that they were lied into it

They have an opportunity to swing a club that other's can't. But they mostly seem afraid to go there.

In my view, could extract themselves from the angst of the antiwar contingent, and achieve much in the way of rebuilding links to old Europe with votes to impeachment and convict Bush.

[FloridaPat]

12. I'd have trouble voting for someone who voted for that invasion.

Of course, the alternative is worse. But be aware folks - the idiot in the White House still has congressional OK to go to war against any country harboring Al Quada. He got that after 9-11. It was not country specific. I think that was one of the main reasons he kept trying to tie Sadam to al Quada - so he wouldn't have had to fight for the new resolution. Had the Democrats in the Senate had brains (or anything else), they should have just put it off until after the elections and gone after the jerk. I don't understand what has happened to the Democrats. Gephart and Lierberman jumped at the chance to support Bush with that resolution.

Last night was a breathe of fresh air - some actually went after Bush!

[Terwilliger]

17. no, Joan should not shut the fuck up

the Democrats who gave Bush his wargasm should hang their head in shame

[gratuitous]

24. As a Christian, I believe in redemption

Democrats who were gulled by Bush, or stampeded into supporting the illegal invasion, or scared into it because of the prospect of appearing "unpatriotic", can certainly change their minds and oppose the ongoing waste of time, money, men, and materiel in Iraq. After all, if we didn't learn a goddam thing from our mistakes, we'd never make a mistake, right?

But the way to overcome the past is to face up to it, honestly. "I was gulled," or "I allowed myself to be scared" is a good start. Then follow it up with a powerful statement about how important it is for the nation's security that we the people should always be willing to admit a mistake, and to analyze the stated rationales given out by our leaders. Finish off with a promise that unlike the Bush administration, the candidate regards war as a serious undertaking, that requires honesty from the nation's leaders and that if elected the candidate will not gin up a war simply to shovel the federal treasury into the pockets of a few favored contractors.

That candidate could win my vote.

[Terwilliger]

26. how about other?

Democrats who were gulled by Bush, or stampeded into supporting the illegal invasion, or scared into it because of the prospect of appearing "unpatriotic"...

Or, maybe, they completely agreed with Bush and what he was doing, no matter how badly he was doing so diplomatically.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

25. NO!!!!

Anybody who has followed these threads should know that I agree that the resolution gave Bush full authority to invade Iraq even without going to the UN.

Having made that clear, I want to point out that that should NOT exclude any Dem from running for the nomination. America is supposed to be a Democracy, and while I abhor the decsion that men like Kerry and Lieberman made to support that resolution, I might be in the minority.

What I will say however, is that candidates who supported the war, should stop trying to say that they didn't. They should stop trying to spin the meaning of the resolution in order to fool people into thinking that they did not support what happened.

For example - Kerry CLEARLY supported an invasion, and he CLEARLY supported it immediately rather than relying on a UN mandate. Does that make him NOT a "true Dem" Hell no! It just means that he has different values than I. He seems to have truly believed that Hussein was a threat, and that an invasion was the only way to reduce that threat. Fine, I disagree, but I am not one to tell Kerry what he is allowed to think.

But for him to try and say "Opposing the war was wrong" at the same time as saying "I never supported the war the way it was carried out" is nothing more than doubletalk.

He should just stick to "I thought it was the right thing to do, and I am disgusted that Bush managed to take a morally right cause and fuck it up so badly".

Then we will get to see whether his view that it was right is agreed with by the primary voters.

[sangh0]

27. NOt true

Kerry CLEARLY supported an invasion

Kerry CLEARLY supported diplomacy. Something he's said repeatedly over many years

he CLEARLY supported it immediately

No, Kerry CLEARLY referred to an invasion as "a last resort"

rather than relying on a UN mandate

Kerry CLEARLY preferred UN involvement. He called it "essential"

You are confusing a "vote for the resolution" and "support for the invasion"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

31. Do I have to repost the resolution again?

Or will you admit that the resolution made absolutely NO mention of going to the UN, and that the resolution gave Bush the SOLE responsibility of deciding whether or not to invade.

Bush had made it clear for months that diplomacy couldn't work and that he would settle for nothing less than regime change. How can you say a resolution that left it up to Bush to decide these things did ANYTHING but give Bush the green light to invade?

So in this case, a "vote for the resolution" WAS "support for the invasion", and that is just based on the wording of the resolution. If you look at everything else Kerry has said, it is clear that Kerry supported the invasion - after all, he said he thought Dean was wrong to oppose it, and that the US couldn't just "walk away".

He may have preferred UN involvement, but he gave Bush authority to ignore the UN if Bush wanted, and Bush wanted.

[sangh0]

32. Once again

the fact that the resolution had no requirement for UN involvement, that does not mean that everyone who voted for the resolution did so because they "supported the invasion"

Some voted because they feared that Bush* might plant WMD's in Iraq. You could argue that it was dumb for them to be scared by that, but "they were dumb" is not the same argument as "they supported the invasion"

He may have preferred UN involvement, but he gave Bush authority to ignore the UN if Bush wanted, and Bush wanted.

Wrong, the constitution gave Bush* the authority to ignore the UN. It makes Bush* CINC and the Constitution says NOTHING about the UN.

[unfrigginreal]

35. Hard to believe that you're making this argument.

the fact that the resolution had no requirement for UN involvement, that does not mean that everyone who voted for the resolution did so because they "supported the invasion"

There's not enough lipstick in the world to make this pig pretty!

[sangh0]

41. You can keep saying that

but producing a reason for that opinion might make your position more reasonable.

Otherwise, it's typical name-calling. You can't deny that there might be other reasons for voting yes besides "supporting war", so instead of making an argument, you engage name-calling.

[unfrigginreal]

45. I believe that you are WRONG!

There was no other reason to support the resolution, other than supporting Bush to go to war.

The brave Democratic politicians said that Bush had not made the case for war...I guess that puts Kerry in the camp of those that think that Bush did make a case for war.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

46. You're spinning so hard you could have prevented tha blackout!

If someone had hooked you up to a generator.

Some voted because they feared that Bush* might plant WMD's in Iraq. You could argue that it was dumb for them to be scared by that, but "they were dumb" is not the same argument as "they supported the invasion"

So voting for a war because you are afraid opposing it will make you look bad to the electorate if the liar lies is supposed to be better than voting for it because you actually believed in it?

Jesus, if they did vote for the war just to save their own political hides then they are WORSE than Bush. At least Bush had a reason to go to war - greed - but to do so out of fear of losing your seat? Disgusting.

Wrong, the constitution gave Bush* the authority to ignore the UN. It makes Bush* CINC and the Constitution says NOTHING about the UN.

I wasn't the one claiming the resolution forced Bush to go to the UN, I was merely pointing out that it DIDN'T force him to go to the UN, even though it could have. The Constitution and the War Powers Act when combined make it clear that Congress can put whatever restrictions on military action they want. They didn't, so they explicitly authorised Bush to ignore the UN.

[Eloriel]

51. Um, what Constitution do you have?

Mine says Congress gets to declare war. Just being the CINC doesn't cut it. Isn't quite enough.

They authorized war with that resolution.

Eloriel

[sangha]

57. Try Reading Comprehension 101

Declaring war is different than waging war. That's why so may of our wars (Korean War, VietNam War, invasion of Panama, Grenada, etc) were conducted in the absence of a declaration of war.

They authorized war with that resolution.

No they didn't. Resolutions are non-binding, which means they have absolutely no legal weight or force.

[dofus]

44. Back before the War Powers Resolution was passed

Hundreds of thousands of people phoned, emailed, and faxed their Senators, Representatives, and even the White House begging them not to consider going to war. We were ignored by too many of those people. I'm not very impressed by anyone who voted for the war who now slaps his/her forehead and exclaims, "Oh, No! How could I have known?" Well, we tried to tell you. I'm still angry at every single one of them.

[leftwingwill]

49. I am just as mad at them but

remember the legislators were probably hearing 5-1 the other way, the media had the connection made, Bin Laden had morphed into Sadaam, and anyone who stood up got Dixie-chicked, I know it is not an excuse, but I can consider one of them if they become the candidate who can defeat Bush.

[dofus]

54. No, the legistators were NOT

hearing 5-1 the other way. Every call I made (both Senators, my Rep, and the White House) I also asked how the calls were running, and in all cases they acknowledged that the calls were overwhelmingly against the war. The news media was actually reporting hundreds, if not thousands opposed to every one in favor.

[Pastiche423]

70. Senate watchers

In the six or more weeks leading up to the vote, we had daily Senate Watch threads. We watched and listened to what was beng said on the floor of the Senate. (Thank you, kef!)

We watched day after day after day. And while we watched, we made phone calls to our Congress people and reported back the responses we got. Every last response said the anti-war callers were 10 to 1 or better.

We also faxed, emailed and snail mailed letters. In gatherings in my community, I handed out pages of phone numbers of Congress people to call. I kept running out of pages and had to go make more.

AND it was stated on the floor of the Senate that thousands upon thousands of citizens were begging them to vote NO!

I remember DiFi (who voted for it) saying she had received 50,000 emails against the war.

The Senator, Robert C. Byrd stood for hours a day, day after day, week after week speaking eloquently and w/wisdom about our Constitution and how wrong * was. He called us his heros.

So there is no friggin way any one Senator or on Representative did not know.

On October 10, and into October 11 2002, I listened to every speech. My heart sank after listening to Hillary and Kerry. Both gave reasons why the war was wrong, yet fucking voted for it. They voted for it to save their fucking political hides.

Those that voted for it and ignored their constinuents, do not deserve our votes now.

[CWebster]

52. Dean

this is why.

[blm]

67. Guess Dems want Henry Waxman to shut up and step aside, too.

Yeah, he should NOT investigate the evidence Bush presented in the lead up to the war, because he voted for the resolution.

Shut up, Henry. So many here want you to just shut up.

[bread_and_roses]

69. So does opposition to the war mean

a blank check on everything else? I am not a Dem (NYS Working Families Party) but it is of vital importance to me that the Dems put up a good candidate. I opposed the war - made calls, marched, etc., etc. And I consider Dem votes for the war morally indefensible. I am moved by the fervor of those for whom the war seems to be the only issue. The Iraqi dead -especially the children - as well as the troops dead, should haunt the nightmares of the Dems who voted for the war forever. But I am concerned that so many posters seem to give Dean a free pass on universal health care, the environment, the prison-industrial complex, civil liberties, banning assault weapons, NAFTA, I/P...etc. When the supporters of other candidates raise these issues, their concerns seem to be dismissed or minimized. Unless we make significant changes in many of these areas, especially corporate influence on politics and our policies in the Middle East, we will see more terrorism and desperate and frightened people will be ripe for another war for profit and oil. Please, supporters of all the candidates - HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE on these issues as well as the war. And btw...based on my conversations off the internet, out here, hardly anyone knows who ANY of the Dem candidates are at this point...they are concerned about the price of gas.

[welshTerrier2]

78. In One Word

No ...

they should not step aside ... but they absolutely, positively have to clearly state that the WAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ...

whatever their reasons were for voting for the resolution, it should now be clear to anyone being honest (i.e. anyone not too afraid of the political consequences) that the war is a total tragedy from every possible perspective ...

that Saddam was evil should not be questioned ... but he was not a threat to this country ... the power vacuum that now exists is a very real threat ... the hatred that we, well bush, has created towards this country in the arab world is staggering ... and he has hit an all time low in popularity in europe ... america has squandered its good will and we are a much weaker nation because of it ...

we are truly the ugly americans ... it's our fault for, as arlo said in his Watergate song, "handing out authority to men who are insane" ... especially for you Kerry supporters, i hope you understand that Kerry could be a real ally as he was as a leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War ... he could join with "Veterans for Peace" (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/) and speak out against the madness ...

the cause is peace ... not politics ... Kerry is in a great position to lead on this issue ... in silence, he will be defeated ... this is not flip-flopping ... this is having the courage to speak the truth ... people are dying ... the war, well, the invasion must be stopped ... terrorism is rising again ... you can't have it both ways ... either the war is right or it's wrong ... those who dance in the middle of the road will be snapped like twigs ...