33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean (NYT)

[Octafish]

33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean

By RICK LYMAN and CHRISTOPHER DREW

Published: November 22, 2003

n the winter of 1970, a 21-year-old student from Yale walked into his armed services physical in New York carrying X-rays and a letter from his orthopedist, eager to know whether a back condition might keep him out of the military draft.

This was not an uncommon scene in 1970, when medical deferments were a frequently used avenue for those reluctant to take part in the unpopular war in Vietnam. And this story would have little interest save that Howard Dean was the name of the young man. Now, 33 years later, he finds himself a leading Democrat in the quest for the party's nomination to be president of the United States.
Advertisement

Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.

"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics/campaigns/22DRAF.html?ex=1070082000&en=a4240500ff458bcb&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Renew Deal]

1. I think this is bad overall.

Mainly because of Dean's comment. People want to feel secure these days. I don't think this will play well with the middle and the right. Bush Co can beat hom over the head on this and they can use his words and the 8 days of Skiing he did.

[JI7]

14. which comment ?

?

[Renew Deal]

56. This one

Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.

"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."

[JI7]

68. i don't see how it could

i don't see how that specific quote itself could hurt. it's not as if bush was in a "hurry" to get into the military.

[adadem]

81. re: "i don't see how it could"

It hurts Dean in comparison to Kerry and Clark.

[Bread and Circus]

84. It's just doesn't make the case that Dean is better than Bush...

to unseat the incumbent you gotta make the case that
their is a clear choice.

An average voter might say "well, they were both draft
dodgers, so what's the diff..."

[Octafish]

21. It's worse than any DEM can imagine.

There are photos of Dean on the slopes during the time. He looks healthy enough. Then there's his back being strong enough to hike the length of Vermont, as governor. Nice medical recovery.

‘Green’ governor
finishes hiking
‘green tunnel’

The Herald of Randolph
June 7, 2001

RANDOLPH, Vt. — Five very tired, very wet, very determined seventh-grade girls from Randolph, Vt., helped Gov. Howard Dean achieve a personal goal Monday — his own end-to-end trek of Vermont’s 250-mile-Long Trail.

In return, the girls got a note excusing them from the next day’s phys ed class at RUHS. The note was signed by a doctor — Dr. Howard Dean.

Nine students and leaders from the White River Craft Center set off with Gov. Dean at 8:30 a.m. from Route 242 near Jay Peak, headed north toward Canada.

The group had stayed overnight on the trail the previous evening, bedding down at the Laura Woodward Shelter. They wanted to be on hand bright and early when the governor arrived, intent on finishing the northernmost 13.3 miles of trail. It was the only section that Gov. Dean hadn’t hiked so far.

CONTINUED...

http://www.aldha.org/howdean.htm



Looks healthy enough to hike for the US Army.

[madfloridian]

2. This is a quadruple dupe at least.

We had this same post last night and 3 others to boot.

I alerted, but they keep going.

This is a dupe.

[Octafish]

6. Thanks for pointing that out. I searched but didn't see the headline.

And that's going back to posts from before yesterday.

You must be a Dean supporter. I think he's a draft dodger.

[Zynx]

9. How is he a draft dodger? Sure he didn't volunteer, but neither did the...

majority of the American people. He also has a legitimate medical excuse, but he probably could have gone. At least he was honest about it.

[Octafish]

76. Dean spent 80-days that winter skiing...

...while someone else went to Vietnam. That well-illustrates the problem with an unfair selective service system: The rich got to hit the moguls in Vale, while the poor got to hit Charlie in the Mekong Delta.

[Bread and Circus]

85. Yeah, that's the problem as always: the rich get richer....

and the poor get shot and killed so the rich can stay
rich.

[madfloridian]

10. Your quote:"You must be a Dean supporter. I think he's a draft dodger"

What a very silly thing to say.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. What's silly about it?

[DianeK]

43. you must be very young..

anyone who was around at that time knew that was no conflict we should ever have been involved in..noone knew why they were there...noone knew why they were going..the lottery saved my brother from the draft..had it not been for that he would have gone to canada and i would have helped him go...a medical deferment is nothing to be ashamed of and not wanting to be a part of a conflict (not a war, by the way, never declared) is also nothing to be ashamed of...had you been around at the time you might have a better understanding of that

[Octafish]

63. My ignorance does not belie my age, 46.

Three of my friends lost older brothers in Vietnam. My family, thank Goodness, had all its sons and daughters return home safely.

Today, my three nephews and one of my daughters are draft-age. I would do all I can to keep them out of harm's way when the commander-in-chief is an unelected fraud of a crazy monkey like the Little Turd from Crawford.

Regarding Dean: Sure, it's OK for him to skip out on Vietnam any way he wants to. Lots of people did, from Abbie Hoffman and Cassius Clay to Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent.

Hoffman and Muhammed Ali stood up against the war and suffered the consequences. Like Howard Dean, Limbaugh and Nugent didn't protest the war. They kept a low profile until later in life.

As far as a Commander-in-Chief goes: I, like many voters, want someone who's been tested under fire themselves. Combat, more than any other of humanity's experiences, separates the courageous from the cowardly. I don't want a coward being brave with my family members' lives.

[adadem]

80. re: My ignorance does not belie my age, 46

Exactly...I too am 46 and am in complete agreement with your comments. If one did not live though that time, the nightly reports of deaths...the deep divide over the war (not unlike now)...etc, one does not understand how deep this goes.

The younger voters who support Dean don't understand the era when we were kids...to us he is a "draft-chicken" no different from bush, limbaugh, and the others who could have served but didn't. At first we were enamoured by Dean's bush-bashing...it was like a breath of fresh air..and even sent him some money. But when we sat down and analyzed the candidates both my husband and I could support none but Sen. Kerry. Who else can truly debate bush with the experience to back it up.

Thank you for my new favorite quote:
"As far as a Commander-in-Chief goes: I, like many voters, want someone who's been tested under fire themselves. Combat, more than any other of humanity's experiences, separates the courageous from the cowardly. I don't want a coward being brave with my family members' lives."
Octafish

[Octafish]

93. Thanks, cheryl27! You made my DU day!

Most importantly: A hearty welcome to DU!

[Bread and Circus]

86. Ted Nugent literally shit himself for 3 weeks and didn't bathe...

to get his deferment. I kid you not. He is on record
as saying such. The worst thing about him is that he is
this big god, guns, and glory goof....he is the worst of
all.

If he wanted to be a peacenik and a CO, then fine but his
"wack 'em & stack 'em" approach is so pathetic.

Nugent is a true coward.

[Rose Siding]

3. Timing is interesting...

This becomes newsworthy (even though it is a rehash of a six month old Russert interview) on the same weekend that the RNC ads start running, chimplete with orchestrated leak to Drudge.

[madfloridian]

4. Number of threads on this topic is interesting.

The board is being bombarded with them. I guess it is all ok, though, as long as this board tears down that draft-dodging Dean.
I guess we will have won a victory, right?

[Octafish]

67. Better tear Dean down now, than Bush tearing him up in 2004.

Rove and his toad hord already have started using a few of those $2,000-a-plate dinners to buy their first media assault wave. It's all Homeland Security and How Weak the Dems Art. And while Ho-Ho's supporters may remember all Ho-Ho ever said, the vast American middle will remember hearing Rove call him a draft dodger all the way to Bush's first real inaugural in 2005. And that's the GOP plan.

[adadem]

83. Rove Wants Dean

Rove, bush and company want Dean to win the nomination because they know it's a easy win.

"Rove exhorted the marchers and the parade audience: " 'Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10541-2003Jul4¬Found=true

Even Fineman makes that point in the latest Newsweek.

Dean will not attract the republicans who are disgusted with bush..they will sit out the election. (They are my neighbors and have told me so) Dean will not attract the swing voters...they, too will probably sit out the election or vote Dem as a vote against bush...like many Dems. I don't know how I could cast a vote for Dean now that I know what I know about him....I've never been forced into a situation like that and I hope I don't have to make that decision.

[Skwmom]

91. I think many of the Republicans disgusted with Bush will

turn around and vote for Bush AFTER Rove and company are through with Dean. They will be too scared not to.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Imo,

wanting to go to Vietnam was crazy. Being "in no hurry to get into the military" at that time seems perfectly sane.

[madfloridian]

7. No one wanted to go.

It was not even considered shameful after a while, just expected.
There was not a "unpatriotic" fervor like there is now.
This is a ridiculous thing to allow to go on in so many threads.

[Punkingal]

8. The same topic can be posted in more than one forum.....

per DU rules.

punkingal, DU moderator

[chimpymustgo]

11. I don't like Dean as a candidate, but this is understandable.

No problem with getting out of the draft. That said, there is no question this will hurt him as a Presidential candidate.

[Rowdyboy]

12. As a Clark supporter I learned early that

when people have nothing real to attack you with, they dig up shit they've thrown before and see if maybe it'll stick this time. Don't worry, this is just more of the same. I laughed when I saw the headline on Drudge!

Dean will ride this out without a problem.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

15. Agreed

They are throwing everything at Dean right now, probably testing what will stick and what won't.

In any case they aren't likely to use this when it comes down to Bush v. Dean, considering Bush's, uh, questionable service record.

If it does come up, Dean can use it to question * about whether he's planning to restart the draft.

[Skwmom]

92. Nothing is sticking BECAUSE the media doesn't let it,

But don't worry, they'll change their tune if Dean is the nominee.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. If we nominate Dean, we can't attack Bush for being AWOL

something that Gore didn't do, and should have.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

16. AWOL is different than 1-Y

and while I agree that Dean's camp wouldn't make as big of an issue out of it as Kerry or Clark would, I don't think it's enough to make a huge difference in the election.

Somehow * has convinced almost 1/2 the people that he is a military man, that he supports our military and represents a "strong America." Ugh. How did we get to that?

[chimpymustgo]

18. I'm still not clear about his medical exam.

I thought Dean stated he had a military exam. That article makes it sound as though he walked in with x-rays and a note from his doctor, and got the deferrment.

What's the real deal here?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. He requested the exam 'to clarify his standing' lol

His spin that he was not trying to avoid the draft is an obvious bald-faced lie. I probably would have done the same thing. It's nothing to be proud of, but I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of either -- so why lie about it?

Dean was classified 1Y, according to military records, meaning he was exempt from service for the duration of the war and free to head to Colorado after his Yale graduation, where he skied at Aspen and poured concrete. Spondylolisthesis is a condition caused by an unfused vertebra. When diagnosed nearly four years earlier, he was cleared to participate in all sports except long-distance running.

"I didn't try to get out of the draft," Dean has said. "I had a physical."

<snip>

"The United States government said this is your classification," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I'm not responsible for that. I didn't have anything to do with the decision. That was their choice."

The basis for his classification is difficult to document. The Selective Service System, following standard procedure, destroyed all records in Dean's file save his classification listings. Dean said he did not keep copies of the X-rays or Wilson's letter. Nor did he keep a copy, he said, of the letter he believes he wrote requesting a deferral from military service. His physician, Wilson, is dead.

Dean drew a relatively low lottery number -- 143 out of 300 -- meaning he could have been called up after college, according to Lewis Brodsky, a Selective Service spokesman.

At Yale, Dean did not support the war but was not vocal. He took part in one protest, by his count. He said he was not overly worried about being drafted and said the reason he wrote a letter seeking a military medical exam was to clarify his standing.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/09/21/a_back_condition_wins_dean_a_vietnam_era_draft_deferment/

[RevolutionStartsNow]

23. He was diagnosed with Spondylolisthesis 4 years earlier (when he was 17?)

and apparently showed up to his Ft. Hamilton exam with those records. As anyone would've done, unlesss they really wanted to go to Vietnam.

The Ft. Hamilton exam no doubt confirmed the diagnosis and he was given 1-Y. The earlier diagnosis, incidentally, cleared him to participate in all sports except long-distance running; the military won't take you if you can't run long distances.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. He didn't 'show up' for his draft physical, he requested a physical.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

32. Yeah, I know

He requested a physical to clarify his status. So he could find out if he was likely to be drafted and have to go to Vietnam. Which would've been nice to know at the time, I bet.

And guess what? After he knew his status, he went SKIING! In Aspen! With rich people no doubt!

[DemBones DemBones]

72. By 1966, guys were thinking of ways to beat the draft, but most

couldn't get doctor's notes even if they had a genuine medical problem because doctors didn't want to write the notes.

[DrFunkenstein]

45. Rush Limbaugh Brought A Doctor's Note For A 1-Y

An ANAL CYST!!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. If we nominate Kerry, we can't attack Bush on the Patriot Act."

Or Iraq.
Or the Homeland Security bill.
Or NCLB.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Why not? Because you say so? Please explain your reasoning.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. Uh,...because he supported those issues with his vote

in the affimative. Doesn't take much reasoning.


Yet you equate AWOL with 1-Y, offering no reasoning at all. Go figure.



Edit- for your edification: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=89858&mesg_id=89887&page=

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Bush has totally screwed up. He's made every wrong move.

Bush violated section 3(b) of the IWR by going to war without exhausting all dipomatic means. Not only that but he has completely screwed up the conduct of the war as well as the war in Afghanistan.

As far as the Patriot Act, of course Dean didn't vote for it as every Democratic senator with the exception of Feingold did. But what was Dean saying at the time?

September 14, 2001
Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor.

“Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.”

Benson Scotch, the head of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was simply too soon after the attacks to engage in the sort of debates Dean called for.

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

“I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

Dean actually called for a debate on limiting the Bill of Rights. That is to the right even of Ashcroft.

I'll be honest, I don't understand how they all voted for the Patriot Act any more than I understand these comments from Dean. Mass hysteria is the only explanation I can come up with. But to pretend there is some great divide between Dean and those who voted for the Patriot Act is simply false.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Section 3(b)

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


You say: "Bush violated section 3(b) of the IWR by going to war without exhausting all dipomatic means."

Point out where he violated it and where it says "exhausting all diplomatic means."






Section 3(a) is the important part of the IWR:


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.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Are you actually claiming that Bush was right?

(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

Do you really think 'reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone' would not have 'adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq' or was 'not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq'?


Is your point is that the resolution doesn't contain the exact words: 'exhausting all diplomatic means'? so what? 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.

Are you really claiming that we couldn't have relied on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone? That we had to go to war?

Bush was wrong. And if you are defending him you are wrong too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. N o...L i s t e n ...c a r e f u l l y.

Sec 3(a) is the authorizing part of the IWR. That's why it is titled "AUTHORIZATION."

Sec 3(b) is concerned with Presidential determination, ergo it's title "PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION." And it nowhere mentions "exhausting all means," as you stated.


Yes, Bush was wrong in his handling of Iraq. Also, listen(read) carefully, The Congress was wrong in giving Chimp the power to pursue action in Iraq "as he determin(ed) to be necessary." (Sec 3(a) AUTHORIZATION)


It's very simple and I know you are trying to obscure the issues involved for a variety of reasons:

(1)to keep an anti-Dean thread "kicked" to the top.
(2)to evade the complicity of Sen. Kerry in the Iraq War.
(3)the vanity of having others respond to your demagogic posts.
(4)***againt the rules of DU to insert this reason***

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. N o...L i s t e n ...c a r e f u l l y.

Bush did not follow the resolution and it was not necessary for us to invade Iraq. Again you are harping on the word 'exhausting' and yes, it is exhausting to have to respond to your poorly thought out arguments.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Once again. Where did Bush abrogate the IWR?

You claimed he didn't follow the resolution because he didn't "exhaust all diplomatic means." I pointed out why your reasoning was fallacious. You return and say "Bush did not follow the resolution." I ask again,

"Where did Bush abrogate the IWR?"

Please answer this question.





Note: LMFAO. "...it is exhausting to have to respond to your poorly thought out arguments." I use the text of the document for my arguments. You make unfounded statements. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm running circles around you and yet I'm not exhausted. On the contrary, it's refreshing to point out your logistical, obfuscatory shortcomings. This would be a great opportunity to put me in my place by referencing the text of the IWR to point out where Bush didn't follow the resolution. Ball's in your court.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Bush was supposed to work through the UN and didnt.

Just to be clear about one thing:

Big fonts don't impress me.

LOL

(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

I'll ask you again: Do you really think 'reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone' would not have 'adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq' or was 'not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq'?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Bush lied and I can't believe you are defending him.

(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 there after 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

It was(is) a lie by Bush that further diplomatic efforts would not work. When Bush lied to Congress and the American people about this, he did not follow the resolution.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Wrong again.

France and Germany were blocking further diplomatic efforts re: UN authorization and support of international force (the "make 'em show their cards" vote that Chimp skipped out on). Was this because Chimp bungled diplomacy? Yes. Irrelevent. Due to Chimp's bungling, "we" were effectively at a diplomatic impasse.

Note that the subsection heading is "Presidential Determination" and not "Congressional Determination." This gave the power to determine the state of negotiations with the UN to the President and not Congress. Another example of Congress abdicating it's duty in favor of giving Chimp a blank check.

(You might as well "Alert" this post, too. God forbid that I point out the facts.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Bush was wrong, not France and Germany

and they certainly weren't 'blocking further diplomatic efforts' - they were arguing FOR further diplomatic efforts and AGAINST war.

Bush did indeed lie about whether the war was necessary. The fact that your are willing to defend Bush in your zeal speaks volumes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

64. Yes. I'm a great Bush defender. nt

[sandnsea]

65. Post #59

Answer please.

[sandnsea]

59. Right here

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

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. See #51

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. And one more time

Bush lied and I can't believe you are defending him.

(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 there after 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

It was(is) a lie by Bush that further diplomatic efforts would not work. When Bush lied to Congress and the American people about this, he did not follow the resolution.

[sandnsea]

73. Here's the whole thing

After all the Whereases. This is the actual Authorization section. Section 3 is the specific authorization. The portion where he must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means is in bold. Bush failed. Bush. Nobody else.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to -- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. I've read it 30 times. Your premise is a false one.

Just because it says "further diplomatic or other peaceful means" doesn't mean anything. This is under the heading of "Presidential Determination." What does that mean? It means when the President "determines" that further "diplomatic or peaceful means" would be fruitless he can go to war under the authority given him in 3(a).

It's really not that hard to understand. Granted, I was a law clerk for 4 years, but it's very clear.

The first half of the IWR mentions the UN all over the place. However, those statements are preceded by the "whereas" clause, making them statements and not conditions.

To repeat, the phrase you keep yelling about is under the heading of "Presidential Determination." Not "Congressional Determination." Not "UN Determination." Comprende?

[sandnsea]

79. The President Executes Wars

Congress Authorizes them. This Authorization included the criteria of:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone

It called on the President to use all diplomatic and peaceful means. Granted, it gave the President the authority to decide when those means were exhausted, but that is the same authority we would give any President. You and I hate Bush, I assume, but he's still the President and Congress still has to treat him as such. This Authorization called on him to use all diplomatic and peaceful means and when he chose not to do that, he abused his powers.

By the way, I've worked for lawyers myself and am quite accustomed to arguing with them when I think they're wrong. Once in a while, I even won.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. You just don't get it. Pretend all you want. I'm done here. nt

[sandnsea]

90. I get it just fine

Drives you crazy, doesn't it? :-)

[blm]

87. as long as it has sunset clauses.

and Dean's civil rights restriction remarks will be used to show the entire country what a hypocrite he is if he brings up the Patriot Act. Russert already had his quotes from Sept.14, 2001. No demagogue he, heh? No moss growing under Dean's feet. I think he beat Ashcroft to that punch.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

20. LOL, goes for Kerry Gep or Lieberman in fact

That was such an obvious response to that post that I missed it!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Kerry's been attacking Bush on Iraq all along.

Don't let the facts get in you way...

[RevolutionStartsNow]

30. Yes he's been attacking Bush on the war

but you must know that there are a HUGE number of Dems that will not vote for anyone who voted for the IWR.

Kerry's attempts to explain his vote have only further muddied the issue. I know this has been discussed to death, and intellectually I understand where Kerry was coming from, but I think Kerry blew it on this vote and will not get those votes back.

If people want to vote for someone with a military record, they will choose Clark, I believe.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Well, you said we couldnt attack Bush on Iraq if we nominated Kerry

And I guess that's just not true is it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. You're the one who said Dean couldn't attack Bush on AWOL.

Short-term memory loss?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Has Dean been attacking Bush for being AWOL?

Maybe I missed it.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

37. OK, to clarify: We can and will attack Bush on Iraq with Kerry as nom

but it will ring hollow with many many Dems who will shrug and think "Hey you voted for it!"

Especially if Nader or some other Green runs and reruns the position that Bush and the Dem candidate aren't that much different.

So, of course Kerry will attack, but it won't have the resonance that it would have with a candidate other than Kerry Gep or Lieberman.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. Here's an interesting article:

“Before he became a political candidate for president, John Kerry clearly believed that military service should not be used for political gain,” said Jay Carson, a spokesman for Dean, the former governor of Vermont who is running well ahead of Kerry in recent New Hampshire polls.
...
A decade ago, however, Kerry rose in the Senate on two separate occasions to decry presidential candidates who used their military service record as a qualification for the highest office.
...
Kerry hit back at his Senate colleague, saying: “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.”

http://www.hillnews.com/news/101503/kerry.aspx

[Andromeda]

89. Hahahahahaha.....

I can just hear Kerry pontificating now.

"Do as I say, but don't do as I do."

[sandnsea]

25. Administrations implement policy

Ashcroft went back to the 1800's to find a law to prosecute Greenpeace. That's Administrative abuse. Not putting in adequate funding so NCLB can create the programs so schools can improve is an Administrative decision. Bush abusing his authority as Commander in Chief by lying to start that war is an Administrative decision. Anybody can criticize Bush on these issues.

The trick is to have a candidate who the American people aren't going to laugh at and think 'what does he know about it'. Clark or Kerry are the only ones who can really stand up to that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. I refer you back to this post, which explains it for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=89703#89848

[sandnsea]

60. And I refer you back to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=89703#90006

Which shows that laws in Vermont were not implemented in accordance with the policies enacted. Happens ALL the time. What do you think we've got courts for?

[sandnsea]

29. This was Vietnam people

This is so not a big deal. The only part of this that ever bugged me is that he acted as if he just showed up at the draft board and they found this condition. That's not what happened and I wish he would have said so at the beginning.

What people did during Vietnam isn't an issue. Well, unless you joined the National Guard and didn't show up.

[chimpymustgo]

34. There's a whiff of "I didn't inhale" here.

Who could criticize anyone for not wanting to go to Vietnam? But Dean's explanation seems to be something less than straight shooting.

And the reality is, he suffers in comparison to Clark and Kerry on national security because of this, and his having no foreign policy experience.

[sandnsea]

46. So what's new?

Something less than straight shooting, gee, ya think? We have a generation of young people who don't get it and don't care. We have a generation of boomers who do get it and don't care. I don't see this as much of an issue, that's all.

Now, the fact that every other candidate was inspired and took up Kennedy's call to improve their country while Howard Dean went skiing; that, I find very much an issue.

[democratreformed]

78. Seriously,

why the double standard?

[mitchum]

38. Hell No! We Won't Go! Let's Hit The Snow!

get used to it (for you will hear it)

[RevolutionStartsNow]

42. Hell no, we won't go! Let's do some blow!

We're ready for 'em...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. some contrast.

[mitchum]

48. very true, Feanororcurufinwe

but you are very wise

[Zynx]

47. Bush can not make that criticism. He was AWOL.

[mitchum]

49. And that fact was trumpeted all over the media last election...

oh wait...it wasn't. And why will this time be different?

[DrFunkenstein]

50. Because Kerry Will Keep Bringing It Up

Senator John Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, said Bush should be scrutinized because he ends every speech by raising his hand, taking a mock oath of office, and pledging to restore honor and integrity to the White House. ''How is it that someone who's supposedly serving on active duty, having supposedly taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without explaining where it went?'' Kerry asked the crowd.

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=132

<>

[SahaleArm]

66. Provided Kerry or Clark get the nomination.

If not it'll be swept under a 200 million dollar rug.

[robbedvoter]

69. But what about W's henchmen in the media? Can they attack him?

Can maybe some non-chickenhawks do his job, or just some "objective journalists" bring it up? Why are you assuming that W had to do his own dirty work? And weren't all the impeachment managers having affairs? I for one can see W flaunting his flight suit in dean's face with impunity. Any objection from Dean will be shut down with "Aspen anyone?"

[DemBones DemBones]

74. It's ironic that the Times chose to run this on November 22,

since JFK also had a back problem but one much more serious than Dean's, as the recent release of a lot of his medical records has revealed. He also had Addison's disease.

But the irony is that, after the Army rejected Jack Kennedy as unfit to serve during WW II, old Joe Kennedy pulled some strings to get him in the Navy. As a naval officer, he served with distinction, survived the sinking of PT 109, and was decorated for heroism.

[Octafish]

75. War separates the men from the boys.

War is death.

Only the brave or uninformed can face it.

That's why old men are the only ones who want war, and

smart men want to avoid war, and

good men want to end war.

---

Edit: typo.

[lastliberalintexas]

82. I'm sorry for Kerry supporters that

they feel this will be an issue for only Dean. At least in the South, Kerry's stand on Vietnam is/has not been a popular one either. The people of whom you are afraid, the ones who think that service in Vietnam is a pre-requisite to service as President, don't think it's enough for someone to have served. They had to do so without complaint- period. The fact that Kerry served will be ignored by these people. He then came back and protested against America. He must have been a commie sympathizer as well.

"What about Shrub," you ask, "He never served in Vietnam." Well, as far as those people are concerned, he did, since he "served" in the Nat'l Guard. What's even more important for those people is that he didn't protest America. He wasn't llike Jane Fonda, out criticizing our country (since we all know it's above reproach). It wasn't just that Clinton was seen as a draft dodger- he participated in the protests, by golly! He MUST have been a commie!

I can't speak for the rest of the country, or for all Southerners for that matter. But I can tell you that the Bubbas of whom you speak, the ones who by and large will discount ANY candidate for non-service in Vietnam, will also by and large dismiss ANY candidate who protested Vietnam.


And yet, we keep letting it happen, because it benefits our candidate in the primary. Screw the general election! We only want to worry about our favorite making it past March. Beyond that, who cares if the party is so bloodied and beaten that we're toast in November? "My guy beat your guy" seems to be all that matters to some.