Let's recap which Dems are responsible for the Iraq War.

[AtomicKitten]

There has been much derision at DU lately of comments made by various politicians concerning getting the hell out of Dodge (Iraq). Possible 2008 contenders including Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and Barack Obama have been eviscerated for their discussion of withdrawal from Iraq. Others including Bill Clinton have also weighed in.

Point in fact: This war is not of their doing.

What strikes me as particularly hypocritical is the the supporters of those that helped put us in Iraq in the first place laying into those trying to clean up the mess. There is no easy solution to this unmitigated disaster.

But, to recap, here are the 28 Senators that voted "yes" on the IWR that helped put is in Iraq, those possibly running in 2008 in bold. Recanting the vote makes no difference to those that have died and do not receive a pass.

Spread the love:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[William769]

1. Sorry, they were lied to also.

At the time of the vote we had our suspicions of the Liar in Chief, now we know for sure. I won't hold it against them for what they perceived as being right. Flame me if you want you won't change my mind and I won't debate it either (because my mind won't change & neither will yours).

[AtomicKitten]

8. I think their yes vote had more to do with CYA for 2004.

[Mass]

9. I guess you mean 2004, but whatever.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I did.

thanks;
I have the wicked flu now

[SaveElmer]

55. AK...the implication of that statement is...

That folks such as John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Max Cleland etc were willing to tolerate the thousands of deaths they knew would be coming to further their own political ends...

Is that what you are arguing?

[AtomicKitten]

61. what I'm saying is this

The Republicans have a knack of positioning controversial votes before elections (DOMA, Homeland Security, IWR) to put the Democrats between a rock and a hard place. Many here have no trouble eviscerating certain politicians for some votes completely diregarding the implications and the conditions under which the vote was cast.

But this vote was about war.

And, yes, I'm sorry to say that I do believe Hillary, Kerry and Edwards at least yielded to the pressure of their political longevity as much as for any other honorable reason you can name. I believe it was definitely in the bullet points they examined. I believe had the vote not been before an election we may have seen a very different result. Bless all those that had the courage to say no.

And I most definitely believe this conundrum was precisely as the Republicans intended.

[SaveElmer]

65. I'm sorry to disagree with you...

That may have been the motivation for a very few...but I do believe that most Democratic Senators, including those I mentioned - some of which displayed heroism in VietNam - Cleland, Kerry etc - were being honest about their reasoning.

Their positions for the most part were well thought out, and reasonable based on the data available to them. I do not believe such honorable folks as these I have mentioned would really make the decision they KNEW would result in the deaths of many thousands of folks, unless they had an honest belief that by taking this action they would prevent a war from occurring assuming the inspectors were allowed to complete their work, find nothing, resulting in zero support for invasion from the Senate. Or, inspectors go in there, find the weapons Bush was cliaming existed, and then provide the leverage for a truly international response...reducing the burden on the U.S.

[AtomicKitten]

70. don't be sorry

It's perfectly fine to disagree particularly on such an important, complicated issue. :)

Moving beyond that point, my intention was to ask for grace for those trying to come up with ideas on how to get out of this mess, particularly those that had no part in putting us there in the first place.

On that I hope we can agree.

[SaveElmer]

71. Sure...absolutely...

I know of no Democrat who isn't trying to move us in that direction (except maybe Joe).

It's just that I usually agree with you on things...so it pains me a bit to disagree in this case!

[AtomicKitten]

82. that's really sweet

I'm really touched by that. Really.

Perhaps it is because I have a 20-year-old son, my only boy, and I have been on the verge of tears since Junior took office in 2000, watching his rush to war, fearing a draft. My boy's whole future was at the mercy of that nimrod. My son made it through high school and just finished two years of college.

This monster mistake weighs heavily on my heart and I have no doubt that is the underlying reason for my unyielding stance on the Dems' vote. That is precisely why I will not support anyone that voted yes on the IWR in the Dem primaries. It's a gut feeling beyond my control.

We will move through this nightmare and beyond it. The silver lining revealed itself when the Dems kicked the ever lovin' crap out of the Republicans a couple weeks ago. That restored my wellbeing in more ways than you can imagine.

[SaveElmer]

87. I certainly understand that...

And would never criticize you for the reasoning behind who you support in the primaries...

I know you well enough to know that once the Democrats have made their decision, you will get behind that person..

I imagine it is similar to the way people in 1968 may have felt about Hubert Humphrey. He is my personal political hero, a truly great American in my book. But he was VP under Johnson, and when he was raised to that position he pledged to LBJ to always publically support him. I know enough about Humphrey to know he had deep misgivings about the VietNam war, and I have no doubt he would have ended it sooner than Nixon /Ford did...but I understand he was a part of an administration that many reviled...and many simply could not bring themselves to offer him their wholehearted support!

[Hippo_Tron]

238. The question isn't about the data, it's about going it alone vs. getting

Bush convinced pretty much everyone that Sadam isn't about the data, it's about going it alon had WMD's I don't deny this and I do admit that those who voted for the IWR were doing so under this false pretense.

Read Senator Wellstone's speech about the IWR

http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

He too had indeed been misled by Bush's false case for war. Yet he and 22 other Senators still with all of the evidence presented to them refused to give Bush the authority because they wanted to see Saddam disarmed by exhausting all possible diplomatic avenues possible.

Now here is where I disagree with your argument

I've read Senator Kerry's speech after voting YEA on the IWR. In it he basically says the same thing that Wellstone said about how based on the evidence that we have Saddam is a threat, but that we shouldn't go it alone.

So here's the problem. Paul Wellstone and 22 other Senators voted against the IWR because while they thought there were WMDs in Iraq, they knew that Bush was eager to rush to war and wanted a stronger resolution that would force him to build a real coalition and exhuast all diplomatic options before going to war.

Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards casted a vote saying that they had full confidence in Bush to try diplomacy first. We as we all know, they were wrong to trust Bush. But Kerry and Edwards are just as smart as the 23 that voted against the resolution so I don't see how they could've possibly made a lapse in judgement that big when 23 others didn't.

Boxer, Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Wellstone, Byrd, Conrad, and others all knew that Bush couldn't be trusted with such a weak resolution and they wound up being right. I don't see how Kerry and Edwards could have possibly have thought otherwise.

[pnwmom]

79. But what about the fact that Powell and others were lying to them

and they did NOT have access to the same information that the administration had?

And that they put conditions in the bill that the Bush administration failed to follow?

[AtomicKitten]

85. there is a special place in hell

for the Republicans. I consider the Democrats grown-ups and accountable. It was very difficult as John Q. Public to sit back and watch the most egregious dog and pony show in the lead-up to the war. I understand your rationale, but in this particular instance - war - our standards must be higher. It is done now and the best we can hope for is to put it behind us with no more loss of life. Oh, and BushCo tried in the Hague for war crimes.

[pnwmom]

96. I certainly shared your frustration in the run-up

to the war. And I was deeply disappointed with the Dems who decided to place their trust in the Republicans who, to my mind, shouldn't have been trusted.

[SaveElmer]

104. I think it is very difficult not to...

Project our opinions of the Bushies now back to 2002. Things were not so cut and dried then. Fact is they had conducted a fairly efficient and widely supported campaign in Afghanistan. We were only a year out from 911 and so folks were still inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Folks respected by Democrats at the time such as George Tenet (Clinton's CIA director) and Colin Powell were urging action...

Hindsight is truly 20/20. I'm not saying a very strong case could not have been made at the time for not voting for the IWR...it certainly was by many Democrats...but I also believe a strong case could be made for voting for it....at the time, and I think most of the Democrats that votde for it honestly believed it was the proper course of action.

[Clarkie1]

106. I can't wait for your gal to tell Clark that to his face.

or some politically-nuanced version of her own making, more likely.

Edit:

Edwards and Kerry at least have done the right thing in the aftermath, admitting their spineless mistake.

[wtmusic]

117. There are no circumstances under which Congress should hand

the president a blank check. The Democrats who voted for it had nothing but public sentiment on the brain and didn't want to be perceived as unpatriotic.

They might have learned, but they approved similarly-disastrous legislation three years later in the Military Commissions Act of 2006--for the same reason.

[SaveElmer]

119. So Max Cleland...

Who lost 3 of 4 limbs in VietNam...was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocents, not to mention U.S. soldiers, for purposes of CYA...is that what you are claiming?

[wtmusic]

246. They were all assuming the president had common sense

which is an assumption which should never be made when hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

Criminally reckless, at best.

[cali]

207. You and Senator Leahy agree.

From his speech opposing the IWR:

"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long."

[wtmusic]

247. Yet somehow Leahy signed off on the Military Commissions Act

Granted, the little bit getting W off the hook was buried deep--but come on. Another blank check.

[cali]

248. That is not true.

He voted against it. He spoke strongly against it. Why make stuff up?

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806c.html

And from Glen Greenwald:

"Sen. Leahy gave a superb closing speech, lamenting that the days when Congress imposes a meaningful check on the Presidency "are long past," and pointing out that the way our Government is operating contravenes all of the political values he was taught growing up. He was properly and genuinely angry as he described the simply astonishing fact that President Bush now has the power to abduct people from around the world and consign them to life in prison and torture them with no opportunity of any kind to prove one's innocence."


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html

[wtmusic]

265. My mistake--the bill was s.2766

the Defense appropriations bill, which basically did away with posse comitatus.

Leahy eloquently criticized the bill--after allowing it pass by unanimous consent on June 22.

[AtomicKitten]

216. especially THIS president

Jeez, that was like handing a Molotov cocktail to a kindergartner. Nothing good could possibly come of it. War is something that should be deliberated over thoughtfully and all measures taken to prevent it.

[AZBlue]

296. The devil's creating a whole new layer, just for them.

eom

[janx]

91. Colin Powell and others lied to us as well.

We saw it for what it was--a thorough PR campaign, with nothing of definite substance.

[LittleClarkie]

134. never mind

f

[DesertRat]

148. I agree with you. No more warmongers.

Hope you feel better. :hug:

[AtomicKitten]

184. thank you

and thank you :)

[BikeWriter]

209. We knew Iraq was no threat to us. Everyone should have.

[AtomicKitten]

214. especially our leaders

Just not being sure should have stopped them from moving forward on it. I am sickened by the cavalier attitude with which people view this vote. It mattered. Hundreds of thousands of people died and are still dying.

[BikeWriter]

227. Even if they were fooled, what does that tell you about them?

[Zavulon]

271. I'm with Atomic Kitten on this.

This is why no Dem who voted for the war will ever get my support, whether it be donations or volunteer time. I had to hold my nose voting for Kerry in 2004. I believe that the "yes" votes by Hillary, Kerry and Edwards were politically motivated; they may not have seen this many deaths coming, but they took the chance. I do not believe they were "tricked" by a fucking idiot and his brownshirt lackeys, either. Some political courage on their parts might have led to a much different vote.

This was strategic on the part of the Repugs and the strategy worked. The strategy was evil and shitty, but brilliant in its effectiveness. Now look where we are.

[enough already]

253. Anyone who EVER trusted Bush is a moron, at best

I'll leave it up to others to determine whether those that voted for this abomination had political calculations in mind.

[blm]

11. ANY version of the IWR would have been violated, because Bush was going to war no matter what

and he would have violated any IWR that was approved by the entire Senate - didn't matter what it said.

The IWR did not take this country to war. Bush had to VIOLATE the IWR guidelines and LIE on his official letter to Congress to start his war.

It also would have made a HUGE difference to Dem lawmakers if Bill Clinton had spoken against the call to war in Iraq, because Democrats knew he would have had more current secret information than they ever had access to - but he was advising that they support IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

15. the list is above for your reference

You can equivocate and rationalize til the cows come home, as I'm sure you will and always do. Doesn't matter.

They are responsible. Period. No excuses.

[blm]

19. Make the case that Bush only went into Iraq BECAUSE of the IWR - you can't.

And you can equivocate and rationalize til the cows come home, as I'm sure you will do. Bush is responsible. Period. No excuses.

And, of course, THIS is the person MOST responsible that we are even SUFFERING a Bush dictatorship today -

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[wtmusic]

20. You really think so?

IMO the IWR was the door cracked open. The document clearly gives the President the unilateral and final say--and like the little surprise in this year's defense budget, I doubt if most Democrats even understood the significance of it. It was an enormous opportunity, and the neocon's took full (dis)advantage of it.

[AtomicKitten]

23. they abdicated their constitutionally mandated powers

to declare war to the pissant in chief

[blm]

29. The Downing Street Memos stated they were going to fix the intel however necessary

to fit the policy.


Prior to the IWR they had said that if they didn't get an IWR they would go in under the authorization of the original UN resolution from 1991.

In hearings earlier this year, Gonzalez admitted under oath that IWR did NOT give them War Powers. In fact, Bush did a signing statement for the IWR that stated he had more powers than the IWR gave him, but that signing statement was only seen last summer for the first time, iirc.

[wtmusic]

34. Would have been a hard sell

They sure are falling back on that a lot for justification (if they thought they had justification from the 1991, UNSCR they wouldn't have even bothered with the IWR).

[blm]

43. IWR was all about 2002 election politics and dividing the Dem party.

They actually knew they had the better case with the 1991 UN resolution - it was in some memos exchanged with UK counterparts about the legality of going in.

[blm]

69. Found Bush's signing statement, wt......

Read the second paragraph especially.

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." By passing H.J. Res. 114, the Congress has demonstrated that the United States speaks with one voice on the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. It has also clearly communicated to the international community, to the United Nations Security Council, and, above all, to Iraq's tyrannical regime a powerful and important message: the days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must - and will - end. Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

Throughout the past months, I have had extensive consultations with the Congress, and I look forward to continuing close consultation in the months ahead. In addition, in accordance with section 4 of H.J. Res. 114, I intend to submit written reports to the Congress on matters relevant to this resolution every 60 days. To the extent possible, I intend to consolidate information in these reports with the information concerning Iraq submitted to the Congress pursuant to previous, related resolutions.

The United States is committed to a world in which the people of all nations can live in freedom, peace, and security. Enactment of H.J. Res. 114 is an important step on the road toward such a world.

George W. Bush
The White House,
October 16, 2002.

[wtmusic]

102. Hmm

Looks like we were going to war either way. :thumbsup:

[blm]

109. Funny thing is that this only recently came out - the media completely

dropped the ball on this and I think it only came out when a private citizen petitioned for the release of signing statements.

If it had been released earlier, more people would have seen that the IWR was not the vote for war that the WH and the media spun it into.

[janx]

95. Yes, he was going to war no matter what.

All the more reason the IWR should never have been passed. Your points about the guidelines are valid, but it was obvious far before the resolution came to a vote that * was determined to go to war in Iraq. The ludicrous evidence his administration presented was proof of that.

[JNelson6563]

41. Funny how I knew more than they did.

Or did I? :shrug:

Probably not. Come on. Think about it. :think:

[wtmusic]

49. When it came to the absurd notion of Saddam proving a negative

(that he didn't have WMDs) a little bell went off in our heads. It went off in many people's heads. Why didn't it go off in our senators' heads? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

53. Political expediency

They had to vote for the war. It was popular and all the kool kids were doin' it!

This war vote, and the subsequent blood bath, is evidence enough of what happens when there is no loyal opposition and everyone's so busy thinking of their polital best interest over that of the world's inhabitants.

Sickening.

Julie

[wtmusic]

56. Ain't that the truth.

If American-style democracy has an Achilles' heel, that is it.

[otohara]

113. Exactly - I Didn't Go To College

but I can spot when someone or in this case several someones are lying through their teeth.

It's was all about politics with those who voted yes, presidential politics.

[imlost]

97. Do you still seriously believe this?

Why is it that plain little old me, a 30 yr. old nobody new to vote no against it?

Oh, maybe it was because I wasn't running for 04 office, or maybe it was because I
I wasn't worried about seeming weak on national security, or maybe it was because
I knew our president is a complete moron. How is it that I knew that Iraq had nothing
to do with the "war on terrorism"? Please give me a break!

[Donna Zen]

115. A closed mind is a terrible waste

bush put out a bunch of junk to make his case to the American people. They even hired a PR team, Rendon. They of course had plenty of willing media cheerleaders. I don't know whether or not you were among those convinced by bush; I wasn't.

The congressional people highlighted in the post have various motivations for agreeing to give bush a blank check. Some of them--I speculate Bayh, Edwards, and probably Biden--agreed with the concept of going after Saddam. This was the clean the swamp option. Some of these congress people rejected the fight because of their own political reasons. According to Hillary's pollster, a vote "yes" put her in a better position. In a letter that Senator Clinton put out, she equates Iraq with the war on terror and 911, and thus, she may have wanted to satisfy her constituency because of the World Trade Center attack. I know of no reason for Dodd, but it should be noted that Gephardt pushed the vote that undermined Senate efforts because of needing to get out on the trail for the 2002 elections. I think that Kerry was pressured because he was very vocal that bush needed to go to the UN and could not rely on the original UN resolutions as bush had tried to do.

All of the above knew that the Iraq Reconstruction Committee was already meeting openly in Washington. And all of them had heard well qualified people speak against the idea of the Iraq War. They also knew that bush was going to war. Done deal.

Finally, I heard Hegel speak about his vote. He said that he voted yes because he wanted to support "his" president, and because he believed that bush would use diplomacy first. Hegel said that he never believed that Iraq posed a threat to our country.

Now without judging their reason for their vote, I think in terms of qualifications. Are people who got it so very wrong qualified to sit in the Oval Office where other crisis are sure to come in the future? I think we need to look for people with the best judgment, not the best excuse.

[roguevalley]

202. I had a modem and a computer and live out here on Mars in Alaska

but I knew Bush was lying. They were sitting next to him on the bus and still they voted yes. There is no pass from them. They had a choice between okaying a blatant lie or showing REAL character and voting no when it wasn't popular. I can't respect nor vote for someone who didn't step up when it was dangerous. They were for it before they were against it because they were moral cowards. Its too bad because some of them had good records otherwise.

[AtomicKitten]

217. thank you

There is NO EXCUSE for going along with this rush to war. None. It took a real leader to say no to this blatant railroading drum beat to war. We can overlook other things sometimes but this was about war, and hundreds of thousands of people have died and are dying. If we excuse this, we are no better than the cowards who wouldn't say no when they had the chance.

[dpbrown]

294. How did the other 20-something Democratic Senators know they were being lied to?

It seems to me that we would want someone with their prescience, not someone who was so easily misled by the Bush Administration.

[Pirate Smile]

2. You forgot to bold Biden, Bayh and Dodd.

[Mass]

3. delete.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Right. I had to keep adding names. First, I posted re Dodd, then

edited to add Bayh, and then edited to add Biden.

Now, I just edited because I misspelled "edited". Ha.

My spell check hasn't been working or is just super slow. Is it just my computer?

[AtomicKitten]

4. done

thanks

[saracat]

6. It is really constructive to spread divisiveness isn't it ?

What do you hope to accomplish with this type of post? This is another example of eating our own which is always a recipe for disaster. It is really too bad that we have managed to win control of both houses, with the assistance of these people you do not support and instead of thanking them, you hold the past against them.You may not have agreed with their vote but without their contributions in election 2006 we would not be the Majority Party. I say THANK YOU to each and every one and hope that we can work together instead of being fractured by holding on to the mistakes of the past.

[AtomicKitten]

10. It might seem that way because your candidate voted yes?

Just a reminder to those that are so willing to forgive this fateful vote at the same time annihilate those trying to fix the mess that they did not create.

[blm]

16. Who is attacking those submitting withdrawal plans for Iraq? Seems to me the responsibility is

certainly on those who voted for it to try and put every best effort they can to work on plausible withdrawal plans. But, maybe I missed some thread where people who submitted withdrawal plans are being attacked?

Is there a link?

[saracat]

52. I have NO idea what you are talking about! Who is trying to annhilate

anone attempting to fix this mess? What on earth are you talking about? And as for my"candidate", are you referring to the former Democratic Presidential Nominee, who was every Democrat's candidate? I have no candidate yet for 2008 Primary.

[AtomicKitten]

63. recent comments from Clark, Gore, Obama, and Bill Clinton

have been summarily drop-kicked here at DU in extensive discussion in that special not-so-nice way - my point being this war is not of their doing ...

[PassingFair]

45. Do you want we should all take memory erasing medicine too?

Some of those dems admitted that they
voted in error (some sooner, some later)
and some of those dems have
been cheerleaders for the administration.

[roguevalley]

224. any group that cannot stand scrutiny and criticism is not worth

a damn. since when is scrutiny, discussion and criticism of people in charge of our LIVES eating one's own. until we GET CLEAR what has happened, there is no future. hold people up to standards and when they fail for false reason, kick their ass. make them know they did wrong and their self-serving rationales aren't cutting it for all of us.

criticism and outrage are democracy. anything short of that is republicanism.

[Mass]

7. It seems to me that Bush is responsible for this mess. But I guess I understand what you mean.

[wtmusic]

13. Their irresponsibility is responsible for the war

Warmongering in the second degree. Isn't that life in prison?

[FrenchieCat]

14. You didn't bold out "BAYH"! (on edit, you did! Thanks)

I applaud those courageous enough to offer substansive plans, period.....
cause cut & run and stay the course just aren't plans.

And as another reminder, I'm taking the same list you posted and highlighting those who were soooo gun-ho to go until they co-sponsored the Lieberman Blank check resolution! The ones with two Stars next to their names are interested in running in 2008. McCain has offered a plan for more troops, while the two Dems both have "apologized" for being misled but have not offered any detailed plans on how to undo what they help create.

Baucus (D-MT)
**Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
**Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT) BIG HONCHO SPONSOR WITH BUSH
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


AND HERE ARE THE GOP MEMBERS THAT CO-SPONSORED THE BILL, for equal billing!

**Sen McCain, John
Sen McConnell, Mitch
Sen Thurmond, Strom
Sen Warner, John
Sen Allard, Wayne
Sen Bunning, Jim
Sen Domenici, Pete V.
Sen Helms, Jesse
Sen Hutchinson, Tim

[AtomicKitten]

18. thank you, mam

I'm succumbing from the flu and appreciate your input. Carry on!

[ripple]

17. Thank you for the reminder

In fairness, though, several potential contenders weren't in a position to vote one way or another. For that reason, I think we should also look at what they were saying at the time.

I know Obama was very vocal about opposing the invasion- it just didn't receive much (if any) national play because he was relatively unknown outside of Illinois back then. I think I remember Gore speaking out against it, too, but I can't be sure. Does anyone have any info about where Gore and Clark were on the issue back then?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Clark worked towards getting senators on board with the

Levin amendment once things go out of hand and it was more or less a done deal that a resolution was going to be voted on. The Levin admendment was the best of the bad options as it would have forced Bush to come back to the senate for another vote after getting a vote out of the U.N. before any war authorization could take place behind the scenes; meaning wouldn't have been an authorization, the the first step in eventually getting there--therefore buying Americans more time for debate, and giving the U.N. a bigger say so. Clark was always against a Blank check resolution even as of the day they were voting.

In September prior to the snowball effect of the Bush PR team for war in Iraq had totally free falling, Clark testified that going into Iraq was unnecessary as it didn't represent an imminent threat!

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

[ripple]

32. Thank you for the info

It's good to know that about Clark. :-)

[ProSense]

22. delete n/t

[mike_c]

25. it was indeed a vote for war-- it was full authorization FOR WAR...

...under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This has been reviewed at length here.

[Uncle Joe]

47. Yes ripple here is a link and clip of Al's Sept. 2002 speech regarding Iraq

There is much more to it on link, thanks for asking.

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

<snip>

Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army's efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden's plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam's military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power. What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America's prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America's prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO I

believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq. The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE

Last week President Bush added a troubling new element to this debate by proposing a broad new strategic doctrine that goes far beyond issues related to Iraq and would effect the basic relationship between the United States and the rest of the world community. Article 51 of the United Nations charter recognizes the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right in some circumstances to take pre-emptive actions in order to deal with imminent threats. President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear - - any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves - - and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration "dominance." This is because President Bush is presenting us with a proposition that contains within itself one of the most fateful decisions in our history: a decision to abandon what we have thought was America's mission in the world - - a world in which nations are guided by a common ethic codified in the form of international law - - if we want to survive.

<snip>

[ProSense]

50. What this part:

Gore's speech was based on Bush's proposed resolution:

In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

Snip...

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And this?

[Uncle Joe]

58. And this

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

<snip>

AMERICA’S MISSION IN THE WORLD

We have faced such a choice once before, at the end of the second World War. At that moment, America’s power in comparison to the rest of the world was if anything greater than it is now, and the temptation was clearly to use that power to assure ourselves that there would be no competitor and no threat to our security for the foreseeable future. The choice we made, however, was to become a co-founder of what we now think of as the post-war era, based on the concepts of collective security and defense, manifested first of all in the United Nations. Through all the dangerous years that followed, when we understood that the defense of freedom required the readiness to put the existence of the nation itself into the balance, we never abandoned our belief that what we were struggling to achieve was not bounded by our own physical security, but extended to the unmet hopes of humankind. The issue before us is whether we now face circumstances so dire and so novel that we must choose one objective over the other.

So it is reasonable to conclude that we face a problem that is severe, chronic, and likely to become worse over time.

But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not. The Clinton Administration launched a massive series of air strikes against Iraq for the state purpose of setting back his capacity to pursue weapons of mass destruction. There was no perceived need for new doctrine or new authorities to do so. The limiting factor was the state of our knowledge concerning the whereabouts of some assets, and a concern for limiting consequences to the civilian populace, which in some instances might well have suffered greatly.

Does Saddam Hussein present an imminent threat, and if he did would the United States be free to act without international permission? If he presents an imminent threat we would be free to act under generally accepted understandings of article 51 of the UN Charter which reserves for member states the right to act in self-defense.

If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack? There is a case to be made that further delay only works to Saddam Hussein’s advantage, and that the clock should be seen to have been running on the issue of compliance for a decade: therefore not needing to be reset again to the starting point. But to the extent that we have any concern for international support, whether for its political or material value, hurrying the process will be costly. Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

At the same time, the concept of pre-emption is accessible to other countries. There are plenty of potential imitators: India/Pakistan; China/Taiwan; not to forget Israel/Iraq or Israel/Iran. Russia has already cited it in anticipation of a possible military push into Georgia, on grounds that this state has not done enough to block the operations of Chechen rebels. What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

[ripple]

57. Thanks for the info

Based on that speech, it appears that Gore would have voted "no", had he been in a position to do so. Personally, though, I think the "yes" voters voted the way they did mostly for political reasons- they were afraid to be painted as being weak on terror. Someone who isn't in that position doesn't have the same political concerns.

Hell though, we can only split hairs so much. It's good to know that Gore saw potential for abuse from the IWR and was outspoken about the need for some real criteria if congress was going to give such authorization to the executive branch.

[mike_c]

24. every one of them betrayed America....

The invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Everyone who voted in favor of it-- NO MATTER WHAT THEIR MOTIVE-- is guilty of providing cover for the commission of crimes against humanity.

[ProSense]

26. First of all it wasn't a vote for war.

Hillary Clinton can't seem to commit to withdrawal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2879856&mesg_id=2879856

Gore's speech was based on Bush's proposed resolution:

In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

Snip...

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Gore was laying out a criteria for war and it's aftermath!

Gore, however, disagreed with Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., call to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; but again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the executive branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=elections&id=4236092

Kerry, on the other hand, cited Bush's resolution, and clearly stated that the resolution was revised to specifically address Iraq (nothing to do with distractions or rebuilding as Gore suggested, but everthing to do with ensuring that war was a last resort):

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip...

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

Page: S10173

Kerry's statements on Iraq make the case against Bush

Kerry's plan


That's clarity!

[Mass]

28. there is no point making the OP's point.

Her premise is faulty because she compares people who DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE to people who had the responsibility to choose.

As you know, I think that it is the IWR vote was wrong, because you had to trust Bush would do the right thing. However, what is equally important at this point is that people want to do something. We may agree or disagree with the solution proposed by any of the people quoted in the OP, but at least, they are all PROPOSING SOMETHING rather than staying silent. Going after them only makes the OP happy. No need for that.

All these people are trying to offer something to get out of this mess, as are Kerry and Biden who voted for the IWR (even if none of them wanted to invade Iraq). This is what should be remembered.

[AtomicKitten]

31. what would make the OP happy is some grace towards those

trying to brainstorm their way out of this mess -- a mess that was not of their doing

Don't presume to speak for me.

[Mass]

35. As I said, I welcome anybody who is trying to get out of this mess.

Not presuming to speak for you. Just stating my opinion of you. For the rest, I was answering to somebody else's post.

[ProSense]

38. You mean like

Clinton and Gore? What's their plan? Kerry has a great http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993617&mesg_id=2993617">plan

[AtomicKitten]

40. and Kerry voted yes on the IWR and refused to recant in 2004

only when the polls changed did he recant .... I'm not impressed

[ProSense]

46. Kerry's got a plan!

This is Bush's war! He even has a signing statement:

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

and a few lies, such as this one to prove it!

[blm]

81. You said people should stop attacking those working to fix the Iraq problem and

Kerry has submitted withdrawal plans dealing with Iraq as it stood in Oct2005, altered to deal with the civil war aspect in April 2006 and again when civil war increased in ferocity in June 2006.

Yet, it seems you focus your own ferocity MAINLY on Kerry. Do you see why we would be troubled by that disconnect?

[AtomicKitten]

89. please refer to the names in bold in the OP

The world doesn't revolve around Kerry, although you keep trying to manipulate its axis.

I refer you to the names in bold on the list in the OP.

I believe those not on the list that are trying to extricate the US from this nightmare deserve more grace than some here are giving them. That's it in a nutshell, but feel free to twist and rewrite my statement to your heart's content, as always.

[blm]

92. I was replying to what you had posted in the thread, not just what was in the OP.

There was a disconnect from what you posted in the OP with your later post aimed - once again - at Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

101. Hey, when you and yours bring up Kerry, the discussion turns to Kerry.

You want to talk about somebody else in particular, that's where the conversation will turn. You and yours can't keep bringing Kerry in particular into every goddamn thread and then complain that the conversation turns to Kerry.

My point is not about Kerry in particular.

I have the flu and your incessant harangue is as usual tiresome. Stick a fork in it.

[blm]

107. I shall leave you to find some peace in your double standards then.

.

[AtomicKitten]

129. Ironically it is the fact that I don't make allowances like you do

for some that is pissing you off. My consistency is across the board. Yours not so much.

[blm]

135. i highly doubt you could ever say anything that would 'piss me off'

Your posts have never even registered a 2 on my matters to get pissed off about scale.

[Skinner]

27. I can't believe I'm saying this.

But IMHO, "recanting the vote" DOES make a difference. It might not make a difference to what happens in Iraq. But it does show which candidates have the guts to admit mistakes and face reality. I find it deeply troubling that some Democratic candidates are still not able to give a straight answer on this issue.

(Question: Of the possible candidates in bold above, who has admitted that their vote was a mistake? I am only aware of Edwards.)

[Mass]

30. Kerry too. May be Biden, I am not sure.

[wyldwolf]

44. Yes, Biden did.

[LittleClarkie]

167. I think Feinstein as well

Did I spell her name right?

Kerry, Edwards, Biden and Feinstein recanted. Anyone else?

[AtomicKitten]

33. and there's the rub

Some would call it showing guts and facing reality and others would say it is opportunistic timing that coincides with the polls, just depending on who you support and who you don't.

[Mass]

37. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, I think.

[Skinner]

39. People say a lot of things.

That's politics. Don't let it get you down.

[roguevalley]

229. conforming to current polls ... I agree. At least Edwards did it

back in the day. It's easy to step away now. Again, that is the whole problem, people taking the easy road. God bless the few that voted against this. They had the same information as the list you posted, atomic kitten. they voted against the resolution. They faced the scorn of the nation and rose to meet
the character test this vote entailed. The others didn't. they will face God some day and have to explain themselves. I would pay money to hear it.

[AtomicKitten]

283. it really is about character

And I share your blessing of those that had the courage to say no to the bullies in this administration. I can't look at my son's face every day and just be grateful he didn't forfeit his life in this illegal, immoral war. The very least I can do is refuse to support those that kowtowed to this administration. And there is no excuse - zip, nada, goose-egg - as you aptly pointed out that some saw through the ruse and others stuck their finger in the wind and covered their political behind.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Bayh and Kerry did as well, also three years later....

Here documented evidence on Bayh
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2785162&mesg_id=2785245

But I am curious on this Skinner, because I've heard that repeated many times by Supporters of John Edwards in particular..... why would it be courageous when by the time they go round to it, the polls had turned and so people all over felt that it was a mistake. Wouldn't that just be agreeing with popular sentiment at that time?

How is that courageous? Seems like there wouldn't be much to risk at that point....considering the time in between.

Isn't courage doing something in the face of adversity? doing something when it isn't popular? Standing up when others are sitting down?

[Skinner]

51. To be clear: My concern isn't so much on the "guts" or "courage"

To me what matters is the "facing reality" part. And the "ability to give a straight answer" part.

If any candidate is not able to face the truth that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, then I have to question their judgment.

And if any candidate is not able to articulate a clear position on the Iraq War, I think that is also a very bad sign. We've had two presidential candidates in a row (both decent upstanding human beings whom I respect a lot) who were too afraid to articulate a clear position on anything controversial, for fear of offending someone. And IMHO it made them seem weak and unpresidential.

[roguevalley]

231. frenchie cat: Isn't courage doing something in the face of adversity? doing something when it isn't

it is. ask the freedom marchers, ask rosa parks, ask ghandi. standing up against evil and wrong is not only right, its demanded of a conscience that is bound by truth. imagine if all these people, if Martin Luther King, if all the other great brave people of the world checked the pulse of the majority before
taking the step to do the right, hard, courageous, just, true and brove thing?

[Vektor]

42. Kerry absolutely has said so.

I was right in front of him at Take Back America in D.C. when he said to a packed house "I was wrong to vote yes on (IWR), and I'm sorry."

He got a standing ovation that lasted several minutes.

He has repeated that same sentiment on more than one occasion since as well, though I was there in person to see that one.

[venable]

76. thank you thank you thank you

this is the most appreciative I've been of anything in a while.

thanks for the honesty and the balance.

[Tatiana]

120. That's why Clinton's stance has been particularly galling to me.

This is what she said on the floor, October 10, 2002:

<snip>

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

<snip>

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

I have several problems with the reasoning above, namely that:

1) It was obvious to just about everyone that the Iraq invasion was a pre-emptive war (or "strike" at the very least).

2) She basically reinforces the Bush/Cheney lies about Saddam being linked with the 9/11 attacks.

3) She says her vote "puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President." Congress has the power to declare war. CONGRESS, not the President, but she and other cowards completely abdicated a Congressional responsibility to the President. It was cowardly. I'm sure the rationale was that if things went wrong in Iraq, they could blame Bush, but if Saddam really did have WMDs then they would seem like they made the right decision. Hedging their bets, so to speak.

So fast-forward to April, 2004:

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

<snip>

Since the invasion of Iraq a year ago, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The Bush administration has cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had the capability to produce such weapons.

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

She conceded that making such decisions is "very tough" for the occupant of the Oval Office.

"That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view, who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way," she said.

(more...)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

So now Hillary's in "weasel" mode, suggesting that intelligence under her husband's administration came to similar conclusions as Bush did. There's only one problem with that: Bill Clinton (if she is to be believed) did NOT make the decision to invade Iraq. So how did two people with the same "intelligence" make completely opposite decisions related to it?

Then she goes on to take a few shots at Bush, saying it's important to have a president who asks questions, is intellectually curious and who "doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way." But she F-ing KNEW that's what Bush was like! Why would you give such a person such authority? It doesn't make sense!

This brings us to Hill's http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter">"Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy" dated November 29 2005. Hillary obviously wrote this letter due to increasing concerns on the part of New Yorkers who demanded an explanation for her support of Bush's actions:

In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

<snip>

From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead.

I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

(more...)

Hillary says she takes responsibility for her vote, but no, she really isn't. She's trying to blame Bush for doing something we all knew he did (LYING). She tries the "if we knew then what we know today" excuse, which is lame because earlier she indicates Bush's intelligence officials said the same thing her husband's intelligence officials said. So if nothing changed in the intelligence received and her husband did not invade Iraq, what would make her think we should authorize BUSH (a liar, a person who does not ask questions, is not intellectually curious, etc.) to do something Bill Clinton did not?

She was wrong. She had no logical reason to vote for the IWR. She should apologize for her vote and admit her mistake.

[Cocoa]

160. Harkin recanted pretty quick

something like May 2003.

[Alpharetta]

48. I support this post

It's about which senators had the political courage.

I don't trust anyone on this list. Yes, I'll vote for them over Republicans, but given a choice I'll vote for a newcomer who wasn't part of this sad list of spineless Democratic leadership.

[SaveElmer]

54. Sorry I have a problem with the framing here...

I think motivation matters...and I think it is important to look at the reasoning behind the position Democrat legislators took at the time!

Most Democrats were not voting for an immediate invasion but looking to provide leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq, some arguing t his was the best way to prevent a conflict. Look at their floor statemenst etc. At the time it was a reasonable position to take despite the protestations of those who say we should have known what A lying scoundrel Bush was.

In hindsight this was a poor decision given what we now know...which most have admitted (including a few Republicans), however there is one man responsible for the decision to go to war...and he lives in the White House.

And further, if anyone believes there would be no war with a defeat of the IWR in the Senate, they are delusional. As this Presidents disregard for the law and the constitution demonstrate, we would be in there anyway!

[blm]

59. Exactly right. The IWR didn't take this country to war.

And in fact, if it had been administered honestly, it would have prevented war. Honesty was not part of Bush's plan.

[mike_c]

122. that is not true-- the IWR was a direct authorization for war...

...under the WPR. It is absolutely unambiguous on that issue. Read the IWR. It specifically authorized war. Anyone who did not support an invasion of Iraq HAD to vote against the IWR-- there was no other way to prevent an invasion from occurring.

[blm]

128. Not according to Gonzales under oath, and why WH crafted THIS signing statement

to go along with the IWR.

Read the second paragraph especially.

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." By passing H.J. Res. 114, the Congress has demonstrated that the United States speaks with one voice on the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. It has also clearly communicated to the international community, to the United Nations Security Council, and, above all, to Iraq's tyrannical regime a powerful and important message: the days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must - and will - end. Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

Throughout the past months, I have had extensive consultations with the Congress, and I look forward to continuing close consultation in the months ahead. In addition, in accordance with section 4 of H.J. Res. 114, I intend to submit written reports to the Congress on matters relevant to this resolution every 60 days. To the extent possible, I intend to consolidate information in these reports with the information concerning Iraq submitted to the Congress pursuant to previous, related resolutions.

The United States is committed to a world in which the people of all nations can live in freedom, peace, and security. Enactment of H.J. Res. 114 is an important step on the road toward such a world.

George W. Bush
The White House,
October 16, 2002.

[mike_c]

145. that's boiler plate and BS....

First, the 60 day reporting requirement is from the WPR and is specifically waived in the IWR (Sec 4(b) of the IWR). Second, section 3 is an explicit authorization for invasion subject to only one single requirement: that Bush notify Congress in writing within 48 hrs of commencing hostilities. The IWR was a blank check for war.

See this thread for more info: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x749182

[blm]

149. Gonzales crafted it because they KNEW the IWR did not give them War Powers.

And he testified to that last summer when questioned pointblank by Dianne Feinstein.

[mike_c]

165. I'm sorry, that is incorrect....

The IWR very specifically does give war powers. Here are the relevant sections:

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.

See especially Sec. 3(c)(1). That is the trigger.

[AtomicKitten]

64. you are rationalizing a vote that had devastating implications

The IWR gave BushCo cover for their illegal, immoral war on Iraq. It gave the illusion of bipartisanship. It was a precipitous vote based on information even we dolts in the general public knew was unmitigated bullshit.

It took courage to stand up and call bullshit on it by voting no. That is leadership.

[SaveElmer]

68. Can you provide me authoritative infromation...

Available at the time, that would lead United States Senators to disregard what the CIA and State Department were telling them?

Sorry, we are projecting our current feelings about the Bushies on how we would have made a decision back then. Things were not the same 4 years ago.

[AtomicKitten]

73. how about this

I believe they did not have enough information to make what was most assuredly a precipitous decision, and I firmly believe it was their job to get it right and not be bullied and rushed into the vote. The fact that many did vote no lends credence to my point of view, and I do respect yours.

[SaveElmer]

83. Thanks AK...

I think given what was available a reasonable case could have been, and was made at the time for either position. I certainly do not have any negative thoughts about those who voted no. Time has proven they were correct.

I just do not believe that those who honestly voted Yes for the reasons I have stated, which unlike the Republicnas, the vast majority of Democratic members did, have anything they need to apologize for. Most have acknowledged had they known what later became obvious they would never have voted for the resolution, including Kerry, Edwards, Hillary etc...

[mike_c]

123. yes-- Scott Ritter has said repeatedly that the U.S. knew...

...that Iraq was disarmed by the mid-nineties at the latest. UNSCOM knew it. The U.S. gov't knew it. This has all been discussed at length here before.

[SaveElmer]

126. Scott Ritter was certainly correct...

But hardly authoritative...he had been out of Iraq for some time. His comments certainly should have been listened to and taken into account. But folks deemed perfectly credible at the time (Tenet, Powell), were giving information which contradicted this. The goal most Democrats were trying to reach at the time by voting for the IWR was to provide the necessary leverage to get the inspectors back into Iraq. At that point either Ritter would have been confirmed correct and that would have been the end of any support for military action in COngress...or Ritter would be deemed incorrect and it would have provided leverage for more supportive international involvement.

As Kerry made clear in his statement, it was not a vote for military intervention as Bush was claiming a constitutional right to intervene militarily regardless of the IWR...and in fact Bush clearly violated the terms of the IWR by invading.

I did not support an invasion when this came up. I agreed with Howard Dean that it would simply spawn a new generation of terrorists. But I am not sure how I would have voted on the IWR were I in the same position. A persuasive case was made by both sides on the issue (in the Democratic Party).

[mike_c]

139. Iraq had already agreed to allow inspectors back in September...

...and Ritter's not having been in Iraq for several years isn't an issue because he WAS authoritative regarding the years in question. He said that Iraq was disarmed and had no capacity for rearming by the early 1990s and that this was widely known by the mid-1900s at the latest. The "persuasive case" you refer to was propaganda, most of it manufactured to keep the murderous sanctions in place throughout the 1990s. Dennis Halladay resigned his U.N. post over it. This information was readily available by 2002-- why do you think we marched against the invasion? Did you think we were supporting a crazy dictator bent on global destruction? (There is a certain irony in typing that characterization of Saddam Hussein....) No-- we marched because we knew that the American government was lying-- and not just Bush. Clinton told the lies, too.

Go back and look at the archives. This information was discussed on DU. If we knew it here, do you really think Congress was completely in the dark? As for it's veracity, well, that is rather self evident, isn't it?

[SaveElmer]

150. Look...

I respect folks who opposed the war. I do not think as you intimate that those who marched against the war were marching for a dictator. Frankly there is nothing in my comment which would indicate that.

However, the DU archives are hardly authoritative. Senators were being given seemingly credible information from those they had no reason at the time to distrust...namely George Tenet and Colin Powell.

You paint a picture of United States Senators willingly going along with a charade to keep in place sanctions which you assert were simply there to punish innocent Iraqi's. You also imply that those that voted for the IWR for less than honest reasons.

The implication of your position is that:

1. Democrats that voted for the IWR were ignoring clearly authoritative information that should have led them to ignore the information they were getting from the CIA and the State Department

2. They ignored it for personal political reasons.

If this is true let me ask yo a simple question. Do you believe that John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Tom Harkin, and Max Cleland voted for a resolution they knew according to you, would cause the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilains and United States soldiers simply for personal political reasons?

[mike_c]

159. that is the sixty four thousand dollar question, isn't it...?

I don't know whether I could live with myself if I had the answer. I think it is very possible that many of them voted for the IWR because they did the political calculus and decided that the politics favored a short patriotic little romp in Sandland.

Let's turn the question around-- why did all of the folks who voted against the IWR do so? If the case against Iraq was solid, or even semi-solid, what could they have been thinking?

I say they are living proof that the case was never solid. Some dems were blind to the truth and were utterly taken in by the propaganda. They were duped, but in accepting the lies so easily they demonstrated themselves unfit for leadership. But I'm afraid that some dems were not ignorant-- some voted for war because they thought it more politically expedient than opposing what must be remembered is an unequivocal crime against humanity. They supported making the U.S. a criminal nation to serve their own narrow political agendas. That is absolutely unforgivable.

[SaveElmer]

166. Response...

"I think it is very possible that many of them voted for the IWR because they did the political calculus and decided that the politics favored a short patriotic little romp in Sandland."

Pretty incredible statement to make about a guy like Max Cleland!


"Let's turn the question around-- why did all of the folks who voted against the IWR do so? If the case against Iraq was solid, or even semi-solid, what could they have been thinking?"

None did...that is not the point. For Democrats (except possibly Joe), a vote for the IWR was not a vote for war, but for many a way to avoid war. Read their statements...read Hillary's and Kerry's statements. It is clear what they were trying to accomplish and that they opposed a nearterm military intervention.

Sorry I am not as cynical as you. I do believe that the folks I have mentioned are honest public servants and I do take them at their word on their motivation. Contradictory information from more than one seemingly credible source is not authoritative.

BTW...certainly your assertion that Kerry was either too stupid, vain, or callous to keep him from opposing the IWR led you not to vote for him in 2004! Right?

[mike_c]

172. what do you mean "none did?"-- many dems voted against the IWR....

:shrug:

on edit: re Kerry, that is correct. I voted for David Cobb, who unambiguously opposed the war against Iraq. I would certainly have voted for a democrat if the party had chosen an anti-war candidate.

[SaveElmer]

175. Viewed the evidence for an IWR vote...

As a rock solid reason to go to war. Sometimes my brain gets ahead of my typing...sorry!

[CTLawGuy]

212. A vote to avoid war???

If I vote for a bill that cuts taxes but say I'm doing it to increase CAFE standards, CAFE standards don't get increased when the bill passes because I say so. Taxes get cut when the bill passes. And I'm still responsible.

Re: Kerry. It's very suspicious that a man who voted AGAINST the first gulf war (which was light years more justified than this hideous invasion) suddenly thinks its ok to vote for the second gulf war. It wouldn't have anything to do with an impending presidential run now would it?

He didn't think the president should have had the power to protect Kuwait in 1991, but should have had the power to invade Iraq in 2002? i doubt it.

Finally, just because Bush may have gone to war anyway doesn't excuse Dems voting for the IWR. If Jeffrey Dahmer is going to murder someone anyway, it doesn't excuse you giving him a gun.

We needed to make a moral stand against an ill-thought out preemptive invasion. We did not. and I believe we failed, for political reasons, to make that moral stand, in the throes of a mid-term election.

I hope we NEVER respond that way to a potential war, EVER AGAIN.

[Leilani]

133. What did they know?

It was their damned JOB to find the truth, rather say they were lied to.

Look at Lincoln Chafee, a good & decent man. He said he wasn't sure about the info. So he requested a private briefing at the CIA, as ANY Senator has the right to do. He said the briefing was not convincing, that there wasn't enough info to justify a vote for war.

He voted No against his own party. That's honesty, that's courage.

Not, "I was lied to, poor me!"

Atomic Kitten, I like your cut through the bullshit style.

[SaveElmer]

141. So tell me then...

If it was so clear that a vote in the negative was indicated...why do you believe folks such as Max Cleland, John Kerry, Tom harkin, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards voted for the resolution?

[Leilani]

154. Several reasons

They didn't do their homework & believed the lies, or

they didn't want to seem "soft" on terrorism after 9/11 or

it was the politically expedient thing to do.

Remember Bob Graham, head of the Intelligence Committee warned that the info was bogus? He warned his fellow Dems & voted "no"

Why didn't they listen to him?

[SaveElmer]

163. So you believe...

Max Cleland of all people is either stupid, vain or callous enough to knowlingly throw away the lives of American soldiers?

I venture to say if you confronted Bob Graham with your assertions here he would vigorously defend the motivations of those that voted for the IWR.

People are not automotons...it is perfectly reasonable to expect that two people confronted with the same information and circumstances can come to different conclusions on the best way to proceed, without one being evil.

[Leilani]

176. I'm not saying anyone is evil

But I am questioning the actions of those who voted the way they did.

Maybe it was more personal for me, because someone in my immediate family had to spend a year in Iraq. I took a break from DU for a long time, because I was bitter & couldn't discuss the war objectively.

Maybe I just expected more from this group of people.

For them it was just a vote; for me, it was family.

[SaveElmer]

180. I respect that...

But I must also respectfully disagree with your last statement...I do not believe Democrats (and Democrats only) viewed this as just another vote.

I believe they took the consequences of their action very seriously. I cannot believe folks like John Kerry... and Max Cleland for God's sake...would willingly vote for such a resolution unless they had carefully considered their position!

[Leilani]

199. Thanks, Elmer

But can you answer 1 question?

How could they have been so wrong when the truth was out there?

[SaveElmer]

250. The truth is usually out there...but it is not always easy to get at...

Certainly the case here...particularly when there were folks very well respected and trusted at the time - Remember George Tenet was Bill Clinton's CIA DIrector - purposely covering up the truth.

If the truth was always readily apparent, we wouldn't need a legislature, we could be a pure democracy...a Republic would not be needed, we wouldn't need to "hire" folks to use their experience and judgement to help us move along the right path.

Unfortunately, in the real world, absolute truth is often obscured by those with alternate agendas, or in many cases, where the religious and ethnic passions of people are involved, the truth is not always so apparent.

[roguevalley]

236. Leilani, bravo post. I agree. It was their job to find out.

[AtomicKitten]

291. a long overdue

thank you for your kind words

[cali]

208. Try reading this:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm

Read the whole thing, and then get back to me on how it was excusable to vote for the IWR.

[Cameron27]

241. Patrick Leahy

will be remembered as a true patriot and a man of rare courage.:patriot:

[ProSense]

75. "It gave the illusion of bipartisanship."

Really? With Kerry and Kennedy making numerous public statements denouncing Bush for wanting to rush to war without justification?

[Pithy Cherub]

77. Bottom line some still said yes which

made there words of protestation mean a lot less.

[ProSense]

84. No, bottom line is they did not say yes to war! n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

90. As much as you want to believe that

it is not true. It was an Authorized Use of Military Force. Spin it, quote it, whatever but that was what they were voting for. If for inspections the resolution would have been more limited. They gave a blank check to an idiot and it is terrible watching people pull taffy maneuvers to parse it so the cognitive dissonance can be better managed. IWR was the worst mistake of many of these politicians careers. Contrast that with Byrd saying his No vote was the best vote he has ever made in the US Senate. People died as a result of the decision. One can't just own, well I voted for subsection I aa, bb an y. They said yes to the whole enchilada and have to take responsibility for it. It was a terrible terrible mistake with tragic consequences. Now, some have to live with the on the record fact of the worst vote, ever when Democrats were in the majority no less.

[ProSense]

100. As much as you want to believe otherwise, it wasn't:

First the language of the Afghan and Iraq use of force authorizations:

The Afghanistan resolution was a declaration, Congress agreed:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The Iraq resolution was a conditional authorization, Congress laid out criteria to be met and required more information:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

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 regarding 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 regarding Iraq.

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.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.

This was always about stopping Bush from rushing to war. In addition to the WMD lies, he violated the terms of the Iraq authorization. The resolution didn't give him a green light to go to war! If Bush had a green light to go to war, he would have had no reason to fabricate links to al Qaeda and other evidence after the resolution was signed! He also would have had no need to attach a signing statement to the resolution.

[mike_c]

213. this has been so thoroughly debunked that it is getting silly....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x749182

[ProSense]

215. "but does not call on him to perform anything further. Not one thing." Wrong!

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--

He lied

This is not the first time I've debated your spin!

[mike_c]

218. you've misquoted the resolution....

The part that does not call for additional action is Sec. 2, which expresses congress' appreciation for prior diplomacy. That part was a congressional lie, of course, but Sec. 2 does not specify any further action. You find me one bit that says "the president shall..." in Sec. 2 and I'll eat my hat. It isn't there.

The part you quoted is in Sec. 3-- the authorization to invade Iraq, in contravention of international law. Section 3(b) requires that Bush notify Congress within 48 hrs of invading, which he did in this letter, which simply quoted back the requirements of Sec 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2):

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Congress made it that easy for him.

[ProSense]

219. I did no such thing!

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 regarding 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 regarding Iraq.

That's part 2!

[mike_c]

220. that's NOT what you quoted in #222....

You quoted Sec. 3(b) in #222.

So now that you've got the right section, where does it say "the president shall..." anywhere in that section? Look through the rest of the resolution-- the only places requiring any specific presidential actions are in Sec. 3(b) and Sec. 4, but Sec. 4 contains its own wiggle-out clause. There is no requirement for further diplomatic action in Sec. 2. The entire section is boiler-plate only one step removed from the preamble. No presidential action is required until Sec. 3.

[ProSense]

221. Why would I quote that part 2?

it just states that Congress supports diplomatic efforts!

[mike_c]

222. you quoted my comments about part 2....

"but does not call on him to perform anything further. Not one thing." Wrong!

I wrote those comments about Sec. 2. You paired that quote with Sec. 3(b)-- that's why I said you misquoted.

[ProSense]

225. What further action were you expecting

on statement about support for continued diplomatic efforts?

[mike_c]

226. none-- this is becoming sureal-- why did you say I was wrong...

...about Sec. 2 and refer to my argument as "spin" in #222? Now you seem to agree with me. :shrug:

[ProSense]

228. It was about

reporting to Congress before any action was taken. Bush simply lied!

[mike_c]

230. but congress set up the lie-- they told Bush what to write....

First, note that Bush's letter simply quotes Sec. 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) verbatim. Who is telling the lie? If it's Bush, he's simply quoting Congress's lie.

Second, 3(b) simply requires that Bush "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that..." etc. Congress does not require any proof. It does not even require the truth about anything. It only requires Bush's "determination," so he responded with a letter that said "I determine..." and then quoted their own words back to them.

The congress men and women who voted for this were not dummies. They KNEW what a blank check they were issuing Bush.

[ProSense]

233. You're blaming Congress for Bush lying?

He lied, not Congess. Bush lied!


A conditional authorization is not a blank check. Bush wouldn't have needed to add a signing statement and lies to justify a blank check.

He could have gone to war without the IWR though, using the War Powers Resolution.

[mike_c]

234. the IWR is not a conditional authorization....

There are no conditions at all. There is a requirement that Bush notify congress of his determination within 48 hours of invading. That is all. There are no conditions otherwise. It was indeed a blank check. In exchange for reporting within 48 hrs (Sec. 3(b)) Bush received full authority to invade Iraq or take any other military action he saw fit (Sec 3(a)). The dems in the OP voted for that, and in doing so voted for war. Sec 3(c) makes it clear that the purpose of the resolution was the authorization of war.

I'm going to bed. Good night.

[ProSense]

237. No, this is a blank check

The Afghanistan resolution:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[mike_c]

239. now you're just trying to change the subject....

That is almost verbatim identical to Sec. 3(a) and Sec. 3(c) of the IWR. They were both blanket authorizations for war.

To return to the OP, Congress was utterly complicit in the war against Iraq-- a criminal war of aggression. Each of the members of congress who voted for it betrayed America and their leadership responsibility.

Now I really am outa here.

[ProSense]

240. Not remotely verbatim

The Afghanistan resolution was a declaration, Congress agreed:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The Iraq resolution was a conditional authorization, Congress laid out criteria to be met and required more information:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

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 regarding 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 regarding Iraq.

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.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.

[mike_c]

242. try it this way....

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) 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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

(snip)

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.

(snip)

(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.

(snip)

Now, what was snipped? Section 2 acknowledging prior diplomacy but not calling for any more, Sec. 3(b) requiring the president to report the invasion to congress within 48 hours, and Sec. 4 undermining the 60 day reporting requirement of the War Powers Resolution. No "conditions" at all.

[ProSense]

244. But they were there!

You want to pretend they weren't there? LOL!

[mike_c]

251. I'm not pretending anything-- I'm trying to cut through your obfuscation....

The point was simply to demonstrate the similarity of of the operative parts of the two resolutions. The rest of the IWR was primarily boilerplate. There were NO conditional statements in the IWR. NOT ONE.

[ProSense]

255. They're different: one is conditional, the other is not! Snipping out parts doesn't change that! n/t

[mike_c]

258. the only requirement was that he send a short letter to congress...

...and even that was after the fact. If that's the "condition" that you think absolves congress from responsibility for the invasion of Iraq then I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn that you might be interested in. Section 3(a) says "congress grants the president *full* authority to use military force." Period. The deal was done. It does not say "congress grants the president authority *if* blah blah blah." NO conditions were attached to the authority to invade Iraq. None. If you can find one, please share it with us. You keep saying over and over that the IWR was "conditional authority." What was the condition that Bush had to satisfy before he could invade?

[ProSense]

268. That "short letter" was

attached to a report:

"based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document."

That letter and the war came after this, another lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Sorry that you're having trouble coming to grips with the fact that Bush lied, but he did!

[mike_c]

273. I think you're misunderstanding me....

I have no issues with the fact that Bush lied-- I doubt that he has been truthful in his entire life. My issue is congress's complicity in his lies, including members of the democratic minority. They enabled his lies. I have NEVER suggested that Bush is anything but a lying fool.

[blm]

86. Bill Clinton is a leader you support and would vote for, and he urged support for IWR.

But, here's a newsflash for you - IWR was not the REASON Bush went to war and it didn't give Bush War Powers. Read Gonzales testimony last summer to Diane Feinstein where he admits the IWR did not give Bush War Powers.

Bush's signing statement is in a post above - the WH knew darn well that the IWR did not give them the powers the way they spiun it to the media as a vote for war.

[AtomicKitten]

124. Bill Clinton resisted PNAC pressure to invade Iraq all through the 1990s.

The Dems green-lighted Junior's invasion.

[blm]

125. Bill Clinton supported Bush's Iraq policy - Clinton was going to invade Iraq in 98 but

xhose not to when the allies resisted going in with him. That's when he opted for targeted strikes.

He was swayed by PNAC eventually, but stopped short of invading without a willing coalition.

[Pithy Cherub]

60. Recanting the vote, even years later is classy.

Courageous is never having been duped in the first place and standing up in the midst of the clamor for war and saying an unequivocal NO. An Aye vote speaks to their diminished leadership judgment. Whether elected or not those who faced facts and standing up in public saying don't do this, that the IWR was a rush to go to Iraq, that position commands respect then and now. The political expediency of casting an aye vote really colors who has leadership potential, courage and the ability to fix this mess with credibility. An aye vote is not to be forgotten ever by me, as it speaks to character and judgment capacity under stress.

Thanks for calling it like it is AK! :thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

66. thank you, mam

[Cameron27]

62. This is a very welcome post,

A reflection of past mistakes has been sorely lacking, while criticism of those who are attempting to correct the situation has been over abundant.

Kudos AK!

[AtomicKitten]

67. thank you, mam

[venable]

74. if you think reflection of past mistakes has been lacking

you must not have been visiting any Edwards threads recently, in which there is a perfect storm of indictments, condemnations, shouts of 'murderer'.

this place is, sometimes, really weird.

[Cameron27]

80. I haven't read through the Edward's threads lately,

but it's horrible for anyone to have made those accusations against a fellow democrat.

[venable]

103. Yeah, I think so, too

I do think it's legitimate to bring up the yes vote as a matter of their past record, but I also think that, as Democrats, it should important be in our nature to recognize error as human, and that the suffering that comes from the errors (ie the entire Iraq nightmare) is of equal torment to those who voted yes, and now wish they hadn't.

Peace

[ihelpu2see]

72. Edwards and Kerry have recanted and said it was a mistake... Lieberman is

the one who should hang (figuratively). I really tried here in CT to get Ned elected but the lying, cheating LIEberman won out :(

[ecstatic]

245. Recanting/Apologizing won't bring back lives

It won't get us out this quagmire. It won't prove to us that they have the courage to act in a fashion that's best for this country and not best for their future congressional/presidential aspirations.

[beachmom]

78. The three saints you mentioned didn't have to vote

So right there, I find your "blaming" to be off. Personally, I think the vote was a trap either way -- vote yes, and you "voted for the war", vote no, and you're against putting U.N. weapons inspecters on the ground in Iraq and can't be trusted on national security.

I find this thread to be about 2008, not "who's to blame".

Oh, and Kerry's plan gets the troops out faster than either of the three saints you mentioned. I trust Kerry on this issue far more than any other Democrat.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Since he voted yes on the IWR and would not recant in 2004

and only changed his mind when the polling changed, I beg to differ. But that's how rationalizations work, right?

And my point had you bothered to read the thread was that I believe those working to extricate the US from Iraq that did not put us there in the first place deserve more grace than they are being given here at DU.

And it is very nice for you to consider saints those that did not support the war. I didn't realize you felt so strongly about it.

[blm]

114. Yet the senator who went to Iraq and crafted 3 withdrawal plans in a year gets

the focus of your attacks regularly. That is at odds with your stated premise that those working to find solutions in Iraq do not deserve to be dumped on.

[AtomicKitten]

127. No, dear, he just doesn't get my absolution nor do the others that voted yes.

He isn't special as you claim in that regard. And, again, because you seem to be have trouble digesting the simplest of statements, it is those that did not support the war that are offering ideas on how to get out now that do not deserve to be dumped on. Get that part straight.

[blm]

136. Except you included Bill Clinton in your statement and he DEFINITELY supported Bush

on Iraq war - quite PUBLICALLY, in fact, and was a large influence on other Dem lawmakers who figured he knew more than they did with all the access to documents they would never have seen.

[AtomicKitten]

151. reading comprehension helps

There are a handful of you at DU that either can't read properly or you purposely restate passages to build a strawman argument to burn down with self-righteous albeit misplaced glee.

Let's take my statement:

Others including Bill Clinton have also weighed in.

How you can possibly take that innocuous statement - i.e., that he gave his opinion recently - to mean anything more than that is pretty presumptuous, funny in a demented way, but seriously lame nonetheless.

Your remind me of my daughter when she was a precocious 13-year-old and would keep at me with these circuitous arguments based entirely out of thin air. I dealt with her because I gave birth to her; your incessant urge to argue is just plain obnoxious.

[ProSense]

153. It certainly does:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2993658&mesg_id=2994362

[AtomicKitten]

156. yeah, you got that wrong too

The anorexic nature of your arguments is really breathtaking. You really don't get it.

[ProSense]

177. When Clinton claimed the U.S. leverage would be damaged

did he realize Bush had gotten dissed by Maliki and that Iraq was proceeding to talk to regional powers despite the U.S.?

You spin is atrocious!

[AtomicKitten]

181. your comprehension of world affairs is atrocious

[ProSense]

186. You didn't answer the question!

If you believe American leverage in the ME is still the same since Bush took office, and isn't getting worse by the day, then I question your comprehension skills.

[blm]

162. You included Bill Clinton - I responded appropriately. Hurling insults aren't necessary.

.

[AtomicKitten]

170. no insults - just pointing out you misread something as usual, conveniently as usual

[blm]

178. You included Bill Clinton. I responded appropriately. Insults are unnecessary.

.

[AtomicKitten]

182. well if you want to take it as an insult in your drama, consider it a bonus

[blm]

185. heheh... drama....hehehe....you call that 'drama' ... I'm just chuckling away

thinking about rereading this thread tomorrow.

[AtomicKitten]

190. ya know what's really funny?

What's really pathetic is you fangirls and your desperate attempts to justify Kerry's yes vote on the IWR. Everybody sees it EXCEPT you few. Wow! You turn every goddamn conversation about anything to Kerry, and then you complain that people are singling him out. Crazy shit you few lay down here monopolizing the conversations.

[blm]

193. heheh...not as funny as when this thread is reread tomorrow.

.

[mtnsnake]

260. "fangirls"

:rofl:

[beachmom]

118. I was being facetious -- other than Mother Teresa, I'm not sure

if I know of any other saints from our era. There's just a lot of people like yourself who find anyone who spoke out against the war (and the three you speak of were not in elected office on the federal level, and therefore did not have to log a vote) to be somehow holier than thou, which I think is taking it too far.

Interestingly, I have the exact opposite view as you as far as who is best equipped to get us out of Iraq. I find that someone who voted yes to the IWR and has recanted that vote is MUCH more motivated to get the troops out than someone who played no part in the events leading up to the war. I highly disagree with you that Kerry or Edwards looked at the polls, and recanted. That is disregarding all the examples of how the Bush administration lied which came out largely in 2005 (especially the Downing Street Memo). Before that, Kerry always spoke of nuclear proliferation and stopping Saddam from having WMD as the main reason he voted for the IWR. But by 2005, there was enough evidence out there that the Congress had been completely lied to. Now we're at the point where Kerry is calling the war "immoral"; where he has been going to the Vietnam Wall and looking at the names, half of which went on there AFTER our government knew we would lose in Vietnam; where I have seen him show emotions even on the Senate floor. And you're really impugning his integrity by saying he is only saying what he's saying because he looked at a poll. No way. People are dying, just like his friends died in Vietnam. And he wants to stop the dying; his passion is apparent.

In a nutshell, you are basically coopting the Michael Moore viewpoint that any Democrat who voted yes to the IWR should not be the nominee for '08; that this is a litmus test. And since you are on every single '08 thread, it is clear that this is your viewpoint. It is not mine. It speaks of an unforgiving attitude that I do not possess. The only Democrats who bug me are people like Hillary or especially Lieberman, who clearly do not regret the war and aren't in a hurry to get our troops home.

[JNelson6563]

88. K&R

:toast:

[paulk]

94. IMO - the IWR - as an issue dividing Democrats

needs to be put aside. Bush would have invaded, IWR or no. The vote was cooked up as an issue to divide Democrats, and it's a shame that over four years later it's still working...



washingtonpost.com
Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote
Some See Such Support As Politically Helpful
By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A01


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer



Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

At the same time, some administration officials are arguing internally that the president should seek lawmakers' backing anyway to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. If Bush took that course, he still would be likely to assert that congressional consent was not legally necessary, the officials said.

Whatever the White House decides about its obligations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, some House and Senate leaders appear determined to push resolutions of support for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when Congress returns after Labor Day because they consider the issue too grave for Congress to be sidestepped. Administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, although all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent.

Bush has said repeatedly he will consult lawmakers before deciding how to proceed but has pointedly stopped short of saying he will request their approval. The difference between getting legislators' opinions, as opposed to their permission, could lead to a showdown this fall between Congress and the White House.

"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," said a senior administration official involved in setting the strategy. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."

[Pithy Cherub]

99. Then why vote for something that makes you complicit?

Judgment and leadership matter. those who voted for it will pay a heavy political price becasue it will be talked about all through the primaries. Let's see only Hillary hasn't acknowledged the tragic mistake. As soon as she announces then whoops there it is! And no my intention is to never let it go as that would be dishonoring those who fell in battle for such a stupid war.

[Cameron27]

111. Exactly.

[paulk]

282. complicit in what?

many Senators saw the IWR as a way to put a check on Bush. Bush had already announced (read above) that he had the authority to invade under the '91 resolutions. The IWR was an attempt to at least set some conditions... all of which Bush violated.

I don't agree that the IWR will be an issue in the upcoming primaries. The only places I see it talked about as some kind of determining issue are places like DU - and DU is not representative of the population at large.

[Pithy Cherub]

286. Nope out in the real world.

Especially with primary voters. IWR will be an issue and the media will also bring it up. The Aye voters are complicit in making Bush legitimate and useful tools for a trumped up war that has killed hundreds of thousands. Bush could claim bi-partisanship because of the useful tools who voted for it out of expediency.

[paulk]

287. you bookmark this post

and get back to me in two years.


If it wasn't an issue in 2004, with both the Democratic candidates having voted "yes" - and with one of them having helped write the damned thing - how in hell is it going to be an issue four years later?

[Doctor_J]

98. Let's not

The is plenty "it's the Dems fault" over at freeperville. Why not just leave it to them

:eyes:

[venable]

105. Hear, hear

very good point

[Cameron27]

121. The fact that we hold our own

to higher standards is what distinguishes us from the freepers.

Bush is ultimately responsible for the Iraq War, but the Democrats who voted yes are certainly complicit to some extent.

That isn't the point of the OP however. Democrats who have NOT been involved in setting this war in motion, and who have presented plans for withdrawal from Iraq, have been mercilessly raked over the coals at DU.

We do need some perspective.

Edited for spelling

[imlost]

108. I support this post too.

I can't take thousands of soldiers and 100's of thousands Iraqis dying
so lightly because of this illegal and horrible war.

[Kelly Rupert]

110. You know who is responsible for the Iraq War?

George W. Bush and his Republican attack dogs. Don't eat our own.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catchawave]

116. Thank you.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

130. As far as I know, Bush** and Cheney** are Rape-Publicans...

...sooo...the answer'd be... none.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

131. Isn't this a tad redundant. Surely by now we can all name who voted for the war

And I fail to see how this is constructive regarding the war. It appears to be destructive finger pointing. People will have their opinions of various plans for Iraq, regardless of who we may, or may not support.

I have strived to at least understand Clark's plan, for instance.

So some folks running in 2008 (or who might be running) weren't Senators. Good for them. They didn't have the burden of the IWR vote. And several of the people you name have both apologized, and offered alternatives. That's constructive.

Why tell a segment of DUers that they're hypocrites if they don't happen to support one plan or another. Are you saying we shouldn't have an opinion on the matter because of who we favor in 2008?

Or was the point just to go "neener, neener"?

[AtomicKitten]

132. Opinions are great particularly on subjects of such gravity

but not when punctuated with nastiness as was the case with some responding to statements by Clark, Obama, Gore, and Bill Clinton regarding withdrawing from Iraq. My feeling is that since they didn't vote for the war they should be allowed more grace than they have been shown here by some. I thought I made that point clear in the OP.

[wyldwolf]

138. dare I say

What purpose is achieved by restating what is already common knowledge and a heated subject on DU? "neener, neener," as you say? Or a way to score points with a certain subset of DU? Or perhaps the OP is genuinely still outraged?

I've no reason to doubt the OP's motives but it is likely that our choices in '08 will be made up of several on this list.

I've resisted pointing out that the OP's favorite candidate, Al Gore, was a big proponent of military action in Iraq in the 90s and as late as 2002 still believed Saddam had WMDs and was a threat to the region. There is reason to believe Mr. Gore would have supported the Iraq action had he been in elected office, but like some others, he did not have to take part in that decision.

[ClassWarrior]

146. You apparently aren't familiar...

...with the OP's posting history if you have "no reason to doubt the OP's motives."

Just sayin'.

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

155. and the usual suspects

doing their dirty business in discussions they don't like - as usual

just sayin'

[ClassWarrior]

191. Hit a nerve did I?

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

198. no, just illustrating my point

And best of luck with the personal attacks in your efforts to get this thread locked

I'm not biting, though. You're on your own.

[SaveElmer]

157. I am quite familiar with the OP's posting history...

And she is usually a voice of reason in the periodic Dem bashing fests that break out here. SHe has made clear her reasons for opposing those that vote for the IWR...but I believe she has also made it quite clear she will support the nominee.

I disagree with her here...but her motives should not be questioned!

[ProSense]

158. "she is usually a voice of reason in the periodic Dem bashing fests"

You've got to be kidding!

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

168. Truth = bias to some

It is you that has a problem digesting the truth when it invades your fairy tale fog about Kerry.

The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. And the fact that you don't like to hear it does not make it bashing. Only a handful of you believe that nonsense.

[ProSense]

183. You know what else is true despite your spin:

Kerry has a plan! The timetable everyone is debating is his plan!

[AtomicKitten]

187. take a deep breath

Many have a plan for withdrawal, many who didn't vote yes on the IWR. Kerry isn't special in that regard, in fact less so because he voted yes on the IWR. But you can pretend otherwise all you like and we know you will. Is there a reason why you think people are interested in the 24/7 Kerry cheerleading? It is having quite the opposite effect than I think you intend. But, as always, knock yourself out.

[ProSense]

188. Yes, Kerry's plan is the only plan calling for a set timetable!

Breathe! Accept it!

[ClassWarrior]

194. Who's "doing their dirty business in discussions they don't like?"

"Take a deep breath??"

:eyes:

Out come the freep tactics.

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

223. Kinda judgemental, innit?

More special... less special... based on a three year old vote. I don't rate folks and their efforts that way.

Your OP is fractious. We should be unifying, not judging who is more or less special and who is more or less culpable or who gets more cookies because they didn't happen to be a Senator who had to make a big decision in the fall of 2002. I ask again, how is this constructive?

How is this going to get the troops home any sooner?

Also, argue that Clark should be heeded as a General with past experience, but don't tell me he should be heeded because he didn't participate in a vote. Of course he didn't. He wasn't a freakin' Senator, was he.

[AtomicKitten]

285. A three-year old vote

that participated in the responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Not something I take lightly. And it's just a fact of life that some were called upon to make that vote and others not. That's the way it is. And the only reason you find it fractious is that you don't agree. But, you know what? That's okay. And it's primary time, dear. It's go-time. It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff. You have your standards and I have mine. It's unfortunate that some can't coexist with a difference opinion without getting ugly, but I was raised in a big family so this I take this crap in stride. I know in my heart this is right for me.

[LittleClarkie]

288. It's not primary time

It's 110th Congress time. I'm not eager to jump into the divisiveness of primary season just yet. Most of the potential candidates haven't even announced yet, for freak's sake.

And, gee, I thought that this was supposed to be about the war, not about 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

290. Are you having trouble following the conversation?

For the 400th time, I will not vote for any of the knuckleheads in the Dem primary that voted yes on the IWR, the consequences of the Iraq war being the reasoning behind that. 'Kay? See how that ties in the war with 2008 nicely and succinctly? There is no contradiction as much as you and yours LUV to play silly little games to start the whirlwind of circuitous nonsense.

The fact that you disagree to provide cover for someone that voted yes is irrelevant. It's your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to have. I have stated mine, and I don't have to answer to you for the content of my posts or for my opinion.

[SaveElmer]

169. No I am not...nt

[Cameron27]

161. You're not sayin' anything

but you're implying a lot. Your motives are pretty clear.

[mtnsnake]

261. I'm familiar with her posting history, too

and it's posters like her who help keep this place somewhat sane and in check, although that's getting harder every day as more and more groupies post their nonsensical BS in efforts to run certain candidates down in a lame effort to make theirs look better.

AK does a good job at cutting through the bullshit. Tough if that bothers you.

[janx]

147. We're supposed to elect members of Congress, no?

Should members of Congress who (unwittingly or not) enabled this war be held accountable? Isn't it our duty to hold them so?

We don't know who will run for president in 2008, and that's hardly the point. That's an asterisk.

[AtomicKitten]

164. Wow - a double-edged compliment, I think?

I have stated my reasons for not voting for any of the knuckleheads that voted yes on the IWR in the primary but will OF COURSE support the Dem nominee in the general AS ALWAYS.

And FTR, Gore has evolved from a pretty conservative POV over the years, I freely admit that, but he also came out against this war from the get-go so I have no reason to believe he would have voted for it. But since this scenario is speculative, it's certainly not worth a pissing contest, right?

And I'm praying our nominee isn't anyone on the list.

[Cameron27]

173. It looks as if

some people are aiming to get this thread locked.

Personal attacks are the usual weapon.

[AtomicKitten]

179. no worries - I got my point across

And the usual people have showcased their true nature and selves quite nicely, I think.

And, as usual, the conversation degenerates into a Kerry Klub versus the universe thing. Bores the living crap out of me I must say. They have nothing to offer but haughtiness, snottiness, and insults. Same old shit, different thread. Feh.

[Blue_In_AK]

203. Sorry, AK, you do it on purpose, and you know it. :)

[AtomicKitten]

205. Now what would "it" be that you are referring to?

Being a target for the Kerry Klub?

My OP had nothing to do with Kerry in particular, but they brought it down to Kerry as they usually do, because that's all they have in their repertoire of discussion, oh, that and trashing everyone else.

But thanks for weighing in because the tag-team needs back up, doncha know?

[Blue_In_AK]

210. All in the spirit of fun, AK.

Everybody's got their favorites. But from my observations, I don't think "they" have cornered the market on trash-talking here any more than anyone else. And maybe I'm naive, but I thought DU was "us" -- not "us" and "them."

[Leilani]

137. Kick!

Kudos, Atomic Kitten.

[DIKB]

140. HOLD THE PHONE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Key Thing To Remember:

The Iraq War Resolution gave us the OPTION of enforcing the U.N. resolutions if Hussein failed to comply with U.N. Regulations.

By kicking the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, and then invading. bush displayed a gross abuse of power, and defied the will of the people and their elected representatives. This ENTIRE mess is BUSH'S FAULT AND NO ONE ELSE'S ! ! ! ! !

[ProSense]

142. I think the OP wants the Democrats tried for Bush's war crimes! n/t

[ClassWarrior]

144. That'd be consistent.

Just sayin'.

NGU.

[wyldwolf]

143. many hear either can't see, or refuse to see, what you wrote.

[AtomicKitten]

152. deleted

thanks!

[blm]

171. HAHA..this is gonna be funny... you didn't see or refused to see what was posted?

.

[AtomicKitten]

189. The only thing you and yours proved is

how desperate you are to justify Kerry's vote on the IWR. Everybody EXCEPT you and yours sees that. It's really sad in a demented kind of way.

And how you turn every goddamn thread and conversation about anything to Kerry. F*ck Kerry. I am so sick of talking about Kerry I could just yak and so are more people than you know.

[blm]

192. heheh....tomorrow may be even more amusing. Bush's war is Bush's war is Bush's war.

and a thousand posts of yours declaring otherwise will never change that, no matter how you wish it to be so.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

206. good luck to you and your rationalizations

Turning yourself into a pretzel rationalizing Kerry's yes vote on the IWR is always amusing. But nobody really gives a crap about him since he's a nonentity in the current political scene.

It's the rest of the players that had the good sense to stand against the war from the get-go that have earned the respect and support of voters.

[Mass]

249. So dont talk about him Put the people who offend you on ignore and move on.

Funny thing is that you do no seem to be able to do so and are as obsessive as they are.

It is actually funny to see from the outside. God, get a grip. It is an online board. You do not own it neither do anybody else than Skinner. He offers us the ignore and hide function. If you are really that sick and not on a mission, use them for your own benefit. It is as sad coming from YOU than from the other side.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

200. keep up your personal attacks to get the thread locked

but you're on your own now ... enjoy!!!

[ClassWarrior]

201. If I'm making "personal attacks," why would the mods lock the entire thread?

Wouldn't they just delete the offending posts? :crazy:

And besides, why is it fine when you say it, but when I repeat it back to you, you call it a "personal attack?"

NGU.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

174. Aye, that's what I'm thinkin' as well

The IWR didn't help, mind you. But Bush was hellbent on that war, and would have found another way to get there.

Responsible is just too strong a word. Who fascilitated would be more like it.

And who has apologized?

Otherwise, I don't see much point in flogging these people with their three year old vote.

[zulchzulu]

196. Let's remember that without the IWR, the UN would not have been able to inspect...

...for WMDs. That vote was, of course, obfuscated by the fact that Bush essentially kicked the UN out before inspections could be fully realized.

I personally was against the war from the start...actually the first war as well. I do however understand the logic of people like Kerry, who voted against the first war and voted for the IWR, which he has repeatedly said was a mistake and was due in part to the lies and distortion used by the Bush administration to lead into the PNAC-approved disaster.

Sadly, we have to look at what happened after that vote that made what many had predicted and made what many thought was the right thing by signing up and fighting and dying for...a web of lies.

[mike_c]

211. that is not true-- Iraq agreed to inspections in September 2002...

...and Bush kicked the inspectors out in March 203-- before they could certify that Iraq had fully complied with the disarmament mandate. Further, Ritter has made it clear that Iraq was generally quite cooperative with inspections throughout the 1990s, and that the U.S. manipulated the inspections for propaganda purposes. The inspectors were out of Iraq prior to the 2002 agreement because Clinton had pulled them out, not because Iraq had kicked them out. Lots of propaganda surrounding this issue.

[zulchzulu]

257. Actually...you're incorrect. Here's text from actual resolution...

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Iraq had agreed to earlier inspections from different UN resolutions, but had not been considered cooperating with UNSCR 687:

UNSCR 687 - 3 April 1991
Ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf War:

Resolution 687 created a UN observer force to monitor the demilitarised zone.

The resolution also called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of:

All chemical and biological weapons, and all stocks of agents and components
All research, development, support and manufacturing facilities for ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km and related repair and production facilities.

Resolution 687 created a special commission - Unscom - to inspect Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear facilities.

Iraq was required to hand over all biological and chemical weapons to Unscom for destruction, and ordered to respect the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The resolution outlined these demands as part of a wider scheme to create a zone in the Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction, with the global objective of a worldwide ban on chemical weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2246037.stm

So therefore, you can't say that UN inspections and enforcement specifically of UNSCR 687 were not part of the IWR...which means that the IWR continued and allowed for more WMD inspections. Add that Bush decided that he didn't like the answers and stopped the continuing inspections in their tracks, hence going against the enforcement of the IWR.

[mike_c]

266. oh, this is getting really tiresome....

The bit you quoted was from the preamble, not the body of the legislation. It is context only, not a requirement for any action. The body of the legislation begins with the words "it is resolved...."

Second, on September 17, 2002-- after the article you quoted-- Iraq agreed to "unconditional inspections." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

Inspectors under Hans Blix returned to Iraq and were ordered out by George Bush in March 2003.

[flyarm]

232. i dissagree with your opinion ..little lord pissy pants started an illegal war..

not congress..in fact this was never declared a war..even to today!

why?? because congress did not authorize a war..they authorized resolution 1441..and little lord pissy pants had an obligation to return to congress every 60 days..and he did not!

If I remember correctly ..( and I could be wrong , but this is how I remember it!!)

Congress signed the resolution to go to the UN for resolution 1441..but * was supposed to go back to congress in 60 days from the time * put resolution 1441 into effect..Kerry kept demanding that * do so..little lord pissy pants never did .. !

Kerry was yelling about it right up to the day Pissy pants started this war..* never fullfilled his obligation to congress until after he started this war!!
please see*****
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
October 2, 2002
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq



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 2 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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

not only were congress lied to ..the UN and the world were lied to ..from my files ..this article is old..but Pissy pants and his band of liars removed 8,000 pages of Saddam Hussien's Iraq dossier on weapons

...the link no longer works but you can do an archive search for full article!

http://www.sundayherald.com/print30195

Sunday Herald

Sunday Herald - 22 December 2002

America tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier

By James Cusick and Felicity Arbuthnot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitised version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council.
The full extent of Washington's complete control over who sees what in the crucial Iraqi dossier calls into question the allegations made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that 'omissions' in the document constituted a 'material breach' of the latest UN resolution on Iraq.

Last week, Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan accepted that it was 'unfortunate' that his organisation had allowed the US to take the only complete dossier and edit it. He admitted 'the approach and style were wrong' and Norway, a member of the security council, says it is being treated like a 'second-class country'.

Although Powell called the Iraqi dossier a 'catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions', the non-permanent members of the security council will have no way of testing the US claims for themselves. this will be crucial if the US and the UK go back to the security council seeking explicit authorisation for war on Iraq if breaches of resolution 1441 are confirmed when the weapons inspectors --
this weekend investigating 10 sites in Iraq, including an oil refinery south of Baghdad -- deliver their report to the UN next month.

A UN source in New York said: 'The questions being asked are valid. What did the US take out? And if weapons inspectors are supposed to be checking against the dossier's content, how can any future claim be verified. In effect the US is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.'

fly

[mike_c]

235. you are not correct-- Sec 3(c) of the IWR specifically authorizes war....

Read it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x749182

[SaveElmer]

252. George Bush violated the terms of the IWR....

Here...the purpose for the IWR from the text

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

George Bush lied about the danger to the U.S....lied about the existence of WMD's....

And the existence of WMD's was asserted by people Democrats at the time had no reason to distrust...

Since the U.S. was not in danger, and George Bush knew it at the time...the IWR military provisions should not have been employed...

[mike_c]

262. I'm sorry, but that is from the preamble, not from the body...

...of the resolution that authorizes or requires anything. The preamble simply describes the context for the legislation. There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding here about the IWR, about how legislation is written, and about how the constitutional issue of separation of powers plays into debates about war.

[SaveElmer]

264. The preamble sets out the reason for the resolution however...

Bush clearly violated the spirit of the resolution...

When courts look at the violation of laws, they not only look at the text of the law itself, but the clear intent in passing it.

The intent here I believe, as expressed in that preamble, certainly as understood by most Democrats that voted for it, was that military action would be required if it was shown that the U.S. was in danger, presumably from WMD's.

Bush knew that was not the case...seems like a violation of the intent of the resolution to me

[mike_c]

267. there is nothing to violate before the words...

..."it is resolved." The preamble is congress's expression of agreement with the circumstances enumerated in each paragraph.

I've got to run.

[ProSense]

256. That's false!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2994344&mesg_id=2995146

[mike_c]

263. you can assert that all day long, but it won't make it so....

You've mapped your own expectations and misunderstandings onto the text of the IWR legislation. I'm sorry, but between 3(a) and 3(c) the congress gave Bush a blank check for war. If you can find any conditional statements in Section 3 please share them with us. They are not there.

[wtmusic]

269. No, it specifically authorizes the president to make the decision

spin, spin, and more...spin.

[mike_c]

274. huh-- that's what I said....

Why is that "spin?"

[wtmusic]

289. "Authorizing war" takes trust out of the equation

IWR signers trusted the president to use good judgement, and they were wrong. If they gave the choice to a 5-year-old it would be criminal; because they gave it to an adult with experience in politics it was still reckless, but probably not criminal.

[ecstatic]

243. I've come to the conclusion that they need to be held responsible and not rewarded

With a White House seat. Out of that list, I would have supported Clinton. But Wednesday night I thought about it, and sorry--they all have blood on their hands. They should have stood up to Bush. Sorry, anyone who voted YES to that quagmire is off the table for me. It's the least I can do in honor of the fallen and wounded US troops and 650K dead Iraqis.

[TayTay]

254. There have been about a million books now written on Iraq

and how the US got into this fiasco. There has been everything from 'State of Denial' to 'Fiasco' to 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City.'

Not a one of these books has said that the Democrats were responsible for not having a plan for what to do after Baghdad fell. Not a one of these books has said that the Democrats told L. Paul Bremer and Bush/Cheney to disband the Iraqi Army and dismiss all the Baathists from all posts in Government in Iraq. Not one book or official or person who was there, either as an official of the CPA or as an embedded reporter remembers any Democrat saying that it was alright to loot the Ministries in Baghdad, because, after all, free people are free to commit crimes.

I understand that it feels good to occupy that very high moral pedastal and look down on the American people and on the Democrats who voted yes on the IWR. I understand that is especially feels good to unzip and piss on them, because it makes you think that whoever you are backing is morally better than anyone else.

However, it is wrong. The Democrats did not fuck up Iraq. The Bush/Cheney Administration, with help from the Republicans in Congress who dismissed and ridiculed Democrats who tried to warn them away from the monumental fuck-ups, did. They lied to the Congress, to the American people and to themselves to get this war. They are responsible for it and the need to pimp for someone for the '08 race does not hide this fact. The Democratic Party was NOT responsible for this war, Bush/Cheney and their enablers and sycophants in the the Republican Party are responsible for it.

The Democrats have a moral obligation to investigate this debacle and try and get the US out of this situation. That is what they have to do going forward. What they do not have to do is feel morally responsible for the what the Bush/Cheney Admin fucked up in Iraq. They didn't do it. Bush/Cheney and their enablers in the government did.

[mtnsnake]

259. Good job, AK. BTW, how nice of the ones who admitted their mistake waiting

to do so only after public opinion of the war took a complete nosedive. It sure took them long enough, didn't it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

275. Some Dems still haven't admitted that their vote was a mistake

Cough, Hillary, cough.

By the logic of this OP, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern were RESPONSIBLE for the Vietnam War, have eternal blood on their hands, and nothing they did to oppose the war after their vote for it mattered, because they didn't "speak up in the beginning."

I wonder how many DUers are ready to crucify the three liberal lions of the Vietnam War movement?

[mtnsnake]

278. True about cough Hillary cough

However, instead of anyone admitting two years later that their vote for the IWR was a mistake, every single Democrat ought to instead stand up and call Bush a lying criminal. That's the bottom line, and the sooner all Democrats get unified in seeing Bush held accountable, the sooner we'll get to the bottom of all the corruption.

[SaveElmer]

279. Hillary has nothing to apologize for...

Her position was a reasonable one to take at the time...

However she has said very clearly in a letter to her constituents had she known the information from GeorgeTenet was essentially fabricated, and that Bush covered up the truth, and persuaded Colin Powell who was still respected at the time, that she would not have voted for it.

[Pithy Cherub]

280. As long as she stays Senator Clinton you are right.

The blogosophere is going to eat her alive if she doesn't recant and repent on that vote. It has grown enough in strength to start counteracting the 100% tilt towards the old world media she uses to communicate. She's in occupied Lieberman world and that is going to the question she will be answering from now until the end of the primaries. She is going to get roughed up badly and she can't be aligned with Bush as he's toxic. But hey, if that's the strategy she wants to pursue, it's great for other candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

284. word

Finally my choice in 2008 has crystallized and become very clear to me. For all those that don't understand and think this is harsh, they need to do what their heart tells them. Mine says I simply cannot support any Senator that voted yes on the IWR. No exceptions. No excuses.

[usregimechange]

270. Bush Admin is responsible for Iraq war period.

[Norquist Nemesis]

272. How many Cons voted "No"?

I don't recall the exact numbers in the DvR makeup of the Senate at the time of the vote, but it certainly wasn't a 60% Democratic majority.

Of those bolded, Bayh would have voted Yes regardless, IMO. So would have Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Kohl (probably), Carper, Both Nelsons, Lincoln and Breaux. There are two or three others (Baucus, Cantwell, Feinstein) that I would have expected to go with a Yes vote as well.

The point being, even if only nine or ten Democrats had voted Yes, it would have passed with the Cons voting in lockstep support for Bush. The only way it could have been brought down would have been if every Democrat and two or three (minimum) Cons would have voted No.

How many Cons voted No, again?

[LynneSin]

276. So should I send a letter to John Murtha and tell him to go ' fuck off'?

I'm upset at how many of our senators and representatives voted back in 2002, which btw was NOT for war but leeway for Bush to go to the UN and ask for the war based on what many of them perceived could have been the truth (yes we know they were all lied to)

However since that vote, many of those same senators & representatives have realized that the information was wrong and that this war is wrong. We can't go back in time to change that vote. But we can go forward and demand that congress not only revisit their vote but make the changes we need in order to end this war, bring home our troops and give them the care they need for post-war life.

I've mentioned John Murtha because in 2002 that guy was one of the biggest democratic warhawks. Hell, his stance on the war could have made even Lieberman look liberal. But Murtha 'woke up and smelled the coffee' and realized he made a mistake. Now he's fighting made to make things right.

We cannot change the past, only work for the future and hope stuff like this never happens again.

And oh, I would never send a letter like that to Murtha, he's doing a great job when it comes to the war

[Mass]

277. Question: Who would you have supported in 68 and 72?

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98

(McGovern and McCarthy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so I guess it would disqualify them in your mind - As for Bobby Kennedy, he was not yet a senator, so he did not have to vote, but he supported the resolution, I think- All of them became opponents only later).

[LittleClarkie]

281. Then there was that warmonger Roosevelt

and WWII. Some say he LIHOPed Pearl Harbor.

[riskgamble]

292. Machiavelli in You

http://personality.selfip.com

This is a free personality test.
You can check out your personality types based on the following three personality theories.

1. Machiavellianism.
2. Authoritarian personality.
3. Risk Orientation.

Feel free to invite your friends to this test.
Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

293. How many reincarnations can one have on DU?

Digging up this old thread .... busted.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

295. What they were and were not voting for...

I watched the whole Senate vote on the IWR. Whenever I see doubt about what the Senators were or were not voting for, I always pull out Robert Byrd's speech before the Senate on the resolution. It cuts through the crap and lays it all out for everyone to see -- and for everyone to remember how it really went down.

This is the text of his remarks:

The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, "All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident."

"Blind and improvident," Mr. President. "Blind and improvident." Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems.

Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?

In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force:

The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive" military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.

The Congressional Research Service also noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 "represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today - but it was resolved without a "preemptive" military attack by the United States."

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet, the resolution before the Senate avers that the President "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Miliary Force" following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting of words! The reality is that Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to "deter and prevent" future acts of terrorism.

Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?

Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

As James Madison wrote in 1793, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...."

Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it - we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.

As to separation of powers, Justice Louis Brandeis observed: "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." (Myers v. United States, 1926)

No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium.

I am also concerned about the consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining and staying in power, would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear that he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force, or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have. Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished, Iraq has a strong central command and much greater governmental control over its forces and its people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth.

Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor. The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces. In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation. The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south. Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.

To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction. So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.

The Congressional Budget Office has already made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs - the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations - would be between $9 billion to $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to CBO. And the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations varies from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a steep price to pay in dollars, but dollars are only a part of the equation.

There are many formulas to calculate cost in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to calculate cost in the form of deaths. Iraq may be a weaker nation militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader is no less determined and his weapons are no less lethal. During the Persian Gulf War, the United States was able to convince Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so he has no reason to exercise restraint.

The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need - the American people need - information and informed debate.

Before we rush into war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us - those facilities and weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities, and the destruction of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq, for the United States, and for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures.

This is what Congress did in 1991, before the Persian Gulf War. The United States at that time gave the United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners. When Iraq failed to heed the UN, then and only then did Congress authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps to war should be taken.

Everyone wants to protect our nation and our people. To do that in the most effective way possible, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the number of troops we put at risk. Seeking once again to allow the United Nations inspection regime to peacefully seek and destroy the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program would be the least costly and most effective way of reducing the risk to our nation, provided that it is backed up by a credible threat of force if Iraq once again attempts to thwart the inspections. We can take a measured, stepped approach that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion if that should become necessary, but there is no need to take that step now.

I urge restraint. President Bush gave the United Nations the opening to deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq. The UN embraced his exhortation and is working to develop a new, tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step, and let us if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done.

Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.

[AZBlue]

297. The flu sucks! Feel better!!

As for your OP, thank you. I feel those who voted should be equally condemned and those who are trying to better the situation now should be equally commended.

I can't go so far as some to say anyone who voted for the IWR will never get my vote - I am never a one-issue voter. I haven't decided yet who I support for '08 - I have my personal front runners, but a lot can and will happen in the next year. While their IWR vote wouldn't stop me from supporting someone on this list it will certainly be a factor that I will not forget and will weigh heavily on my decision, as I would hope it would everyone's.