Its not just that they did it wrong, it was wrong no matter how

[chieftain]

it was done. The Iraq War is immoral and strategically wrongheaded. This was apparent to many during the run-up to the debacle. Even if Clinton, Biden et al. were duped into believing that WMD existed in Iraq, there was no credible showing that they could be weaponized in such a way as to present a clear and present danger to the US. Unless a presidential candidate is willing to acknowledge the accuracy of the first sentence of this thread, they are unworthy of support in the Primaries. It is not enough that the serial stupidities of W's management of the effort are pointed out.
I will not support any Democrat in the Primaries who refuses to acknowledge the basic truth that the US should never start an unprovoked war. I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is even if they fail this key test. Such is the state of the Republican Party that I can think of no Dem I wouldn't support over any Republican. That said I will worry that when the fundamental lesson of the Iraq disaster is ignored, we may see a Democrat lead us into a similar travesty.

[Phredicles]

1. Recommended for truth.

[chieftain]

3. Thanks

[Marnieworld]

2. Damn straight yo!

:patriot:

on edit:

An unprovoked war of choice is according to the Geneva Accords the Biggest war crime of them all and anything afterwards is just a series of war crimes. It was written in response to Hitler's imperialism. Now the Bushies polished it and call it the Bush Doctrine.

It's not just wrong with Iraq, it's just wrong and I am still waiting for a candidate to say this and promises to reverse this unAmerican, unprecedented choice.

[The Count]

4. I noticed you left one co-sponsor of IWR out although I never heard him apologize

for the sponsoring, or say any of the stuff about the immoral war. He is getting a free ride here on DU, in spite having been very proud of his sponsoring IWR and writing the Patriot Act
Just want to set the record clear:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /


John Edwards supported the Iraq war more than Bush did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

[UpInArms]

6. Edwards again apologizes for 2002 war vote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17378613/

Updated: 8:30 a.m. MT Feb 28, 2007

NEW YORK - Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Trolling for campaign cash on a three-day visit to New York - home of his chief Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - Edwards spoke to reporters after attending a union-sponsored workshop on eradicating poverty.

Asked whether his repeated apologies for his vote would be a turnoff to voters over time, the 2004 vice presidential nominee said that after six years of President Bush, voters craved a president willing to acknowledge errors and change course if necessary.

"If you asked me what I think the most important personal characteristics of the next president are, I would say honesty, openness and decency," he said. "There's not a single voter in America who doesn't understand that their president is human, and their president will sometimes makes mistakes."

At a voter forum in Carson City, Nev., last week, Edwards said Clinton's decision not to disavow her vote was "between her and her conscience." He didn't mention her Wednesday, taking a swipe at President Bush instead.

...more...

you haven't been listening - I have heard him say this several times now

:hi:

[The Count]

7. That's when he said he's better than her because he said 'oops" and she didn't

I still didn't see anything in his apology about this being something 'morally wrong" - or mentioning his sponsorship of the law. All he mentions in the wapo article is the faulty intelligence and the bad conduct of war. other than that, fine with the war "he would have started it himself if POTUS" But you are easier pleased than I/

[GreenArrow]

12. he can say he was wrong as many times as he wants,

but he has not, nor likely will he, say he is wrong in the context of the original post.

His "apologies" intentionally avoid this, presumably because he a) either doesn't believe such things as preventive things are morally wrong, b) he believes it is America's place to be moral leader of the world -- a 21st century update of the "white man's burden" -- and that our "vital strategic interests" in that part of the world outweigh the interests of those who actually live there, and/or c) he believes his Presidential aspirations might be damaged if he actually admitted that America was the wronging party here, and that he took an extremely active role in bringing those wrong actions to pass.

The dude is a masterfully skillful snake oil salesman, and sadly, lots of people seem to be falling for his pitch.

[Clark2008]

43. Right one, GreenArrow!!

:yourock:

[understandinglife]

5. Well stated.

Recommended.

No amount of spin, no form of euphemism, will ever make war of aggression, legal or moral.

[many a good man]

8. Phony Macho Bullshit

PMBS got us into this war and we can see clearly what it has gotten us. PMBS is the Republicon cure for every foreign crisis because they think it makes everyone else look weak. They want to say to the rest of the world "Look! We have the biggest dick in the world!" THUMP! They whack it down on the table for everyone to admire. The only problem is now everyone can see our big military dick is not all that powerful after all.

[Hart2008]

9. The Senate clique knew it was B.S.

These group played politics with the war. It was all a political calculation:
"We'll give him this vote, get it out of the way and then be able to focus the 2002 election on the issues we do best on: the economy, education, healthcare, corporate corruption."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/four-years-later-leaders_b_43601.html

:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[chieftain]

13. Welcome to the group. I agree with you. If you look at most of

the supportive speeches from our people at the time of the vote, they seem to reek with political calculation. Although it is embarrassing to say so, I can accept this from politicians, although it is less than responsible behavior. What really worries me are those "muscular liberals" who think that this was a legitimate effort poor only in its execution.

[Jacobin]

14. I agree with you

they made a political calculation and it turned out to burn them like a blowtorch.

I don't think anyone who supported this ill fated invasion deserves to be in a position of power, as it proves just how incredibly horrid their judgment and knowledge of foreign policy actually is.

[Lerkfish]

10. thanks. That"s what I've been saying all along. I tire of candidates who criticize the HANDLING

of the war and completely bypass the immorality of the war in the first place.

[Hart2008]

11. There is also the small matter of the U.S. Constitution...

Delegating the power to declare war on a nation that did not attack us to the President was political cowardice.

None of these Senators deserve to be our President.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Rusty MacHenry]

15. Then who do you think I should I vote for

Clark? what has he done that makes me want to vote for him? No regardless of his IWR vote i'm still going to vote for Edwards in the primaries cause I think he's a good man for the job and I like the populist campaign he's running.

Sneaky salesman? who cares.

[Hart2008]

17. Well since you asked, Gary Hart of course!

"regardless of his IWR vote i'm still going to vote for Edwards"

So you want to reward incompetence with a promotion?

War and peace is just a small detail, right?

It is very hard to criticize the opposition party when your candidate help created the big mess.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

It is still early in the game. Why limit yourself to the flawed field when the best candidates have yet to announce?

There is no Republican who can beat Gary Hart. The same can’t be said about the others.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Rusty MacHenry]

18. Gore isn't going to run

And Clark has no name regconition and it's looking like every minute he delays jumping into the race means to late for him.

Why limit myself? cause I like Edwards, Obama and Richardson aren't too shabby either but that's it.

Gary Hart, the womanizer? please i'm not voting for someone like that because of that past.

Atleast Edwards has apologize for his vote, can't say the same for our corporate whore Hillary.

So you want to reward incompetence with a promotion?

So he made a mistake, big deal. No one is perfect and neither is Edwards or anyone else running for President.

Gary Hart? your dreaming man.;-) ;)

[Hart2008]

19. No we're not dreaming...

“So you want to reward incompetence with a promotion?
So he made a mistake, big deal. No one is perfect…”

The answer is yes. You do want to reward incompetence with a promotion.

Yes thousands of dead young Americans and Iraqis is a big deal.

If you were the father of one of those dead or maimed soldiers, would you accept John Edwards apology?

”Gary Hart, the womanizer?”

No, you have confused Gary Hart with Bill Clinton. Gary Hart is not a womanizer. That was a smear and a cheap shot. Even Richard Nixon said so. He has been married to the same wife for 45 years or so.

The Presidency is not the place for on the job training. The current occupant of the White House is a case in point.

The war is the big issue now, and your candidate cannot run against it because he helped to create the problem.

Gary Hart has not ruled out running. In 2003 he registered in all the polls, especially in California. Draft Hart is very serious.


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Rusty MacHenry]

20. Well I won't vote for him that's for sure

And as for Clinton well I didn't like what he did either

If you were the father of one of those dead or maimed soldiers, would you accept John Edwards apology?

I'm not a father, so I can't have a opinion.

[Hart2008]

21. Oh, you certainly can have an opinion.

So I guess you wouldn’t vote for JFK or FDR either than right? FDR died with his mistress. Hitler, on the other hand never cheated on his wife. So Hitler was the better man in your opinion, right? You would vote for Hitler over FDR, right?

“If you were the father of one of those dead or maimed soldiers, would you accept John Edwards apology?
I'm not a father, so I can't have a opinion.”

The question was “if your were…” You certainly can have an opinion. You don’t want to answer the question.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Rusty MacHenry]

22. That's right I don't want to answer your question

Cause I don't feel like debateing you about mistresses and Gary Hart.

[Hart2008]

23. That's not the question you won't answer!

The question was:
“If you were the father of one of those dead or maimed soldiers, would you accept John Edwards apology?
I'm not a father, so I can't have a opinion.”

The question was “if your were…” You certainly can have an opinion. You don’t want to answer the question.

[Hart2008]

24. I hear crickets! n/t

[chieftain]

25. I don't mind criticizing the handling of the war since it has

been abysmal and I think that there is a large segment of the population that will respond to that argument. Also it confirms the incompetence meme that gained momentum after W and his henchmen screwed up New Orleans. What I find reprehensible are Democratic candidates that limit their disapproval to the tactics and the execution of the war. If our people won't take a public stand explaining the immorality and folly of wars of choice, who will - faux?
I was a young man during Vietnam and it brings me to tears that after such a short period of time , we are in a similar situation and our military and the Iraqis are paying such a high price for our arrogance and ignorance.

[GreenArrow]

31. our people can't take a stand

because in too many cases, they have been complicit. Even those who didn't vote aye on IWR in most cases had no problems with our objectives there, only the method Bush chose to achieve them. As Einstein put it, "you can't solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them". Yet, sadly, that is exactly what is going to be attempted.

[chieftain]

34. You're right about most of them. They are terrified of being

known as flip floppers who got what was arguably their most important vote so very, very wrong.

[warren pease]

16. Interesting take on public support for redeployment

This is from a post by The Magistrate on another thread, but it's a different view of the Iraq disaster and the public's born-again distaste for it:


"Most who want the venture ended desire this because they have come to perceive it as a failure, and thus necessarily a waste, and even more important, view it something they do not want their sensibilities assaulted by on the news anymore, because it is not enjoyable, and it is boring.
The largest single bloc of voters comprises people who once supported the war, and now have grown disenchanted with it. The 'anti-war' sentiment among these people is very thin and poorly rooted. They want the matter ended, but in a manner that will allow them to evade acknowledging it as a defeat for the country, which is a thing that would greatly affront their patriotic pride.

"The corollary is that the war, and BushCo by extension, would now enjoy significant popular support if things had gone the PNAC way -- a "cakewalk" for the liberators, who would be greeted by grateful flower-bearing Iraqi citizens."


So by that reasoning, and I fail to find fault with it, national concerns over the morality of the Iraq invasion, and of war in general, are a non issue. Which means to me that they would swallow an attack on Iran with the usual flag-waving quasi-patriotic horseshit and give BushCo the benefit of the doubt once again. A nation of suckers, just waiting for a new opportunity to drain what's left of the treasury on another quest for oil by an obvious lunatic who should be in a strait-jacket rather than prancing loose in the rose garden.


wp

[Hart2008]

27. Accountability and "Peace with Honor"

From another thread:

But if we are to judge the war authorization vote from a purely political perspective, and ignore the morality of playing politics when voting for war, this group is still inept. Not a single Senator in this clique offered an alternative to the Republican war authorization. They sat back and allowed the opposition to frame the debate as a choice between one, and only one, option: the pseudo-war resolution. (A pseudo-war resolution, in that it was not the declaration of war as required by the Constitution.) There was, of course, one wise man, who counseled Senate Democrats to avoid getting painted into a corner politically. "I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'" :
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart...
That wise man was, of course, Gary Hart. (Hart suggested increasing inspections by 3 or 4 fold with a U.N. force, a nationwide no fly-zone, and inspections of all commerce entering an leaving Iraq. All of which would have been cheaper than the war and present occupation.) To make such an alternative proposal required thought and effort, and was something none of these Senators choose to do.

Perhaps they were to busy raising money and planning their Presidential campaigns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

To draw parallels with the Vietnam conflict, there are many Americans who want “Peace with honor” as Nixon promised in Vietnam to salve the national ego. The swing voters who will decide the general election want a President with a solid reputation in International affairs. The public wants someone who didn’t cause the mess, but also can be trusted to clean up the mess. IMHO, any candidate who created this mess will be excluded, Democrat or Republican. (It should be noted that Senator McCain’s support of the war has cost him his “front-runner” status, and his campaign in foundering badly and starting to list.)

How can we demand accountability from Bush and the Republicans if we do not demand it of our own candidates?

As the activists of the party we should not limit our choices to the announced candidates who have damaged themselves by creating this mess and jeopardize the party’s chance of winning the general election. Gary Hart will appeal to the activist base of the party, since he opposed the war AND swing voters will be very comfortable with his command of International relations, Defense policy, and the war on terrorism.



:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[chieftain]

29. There is an element of truth in what you say, but I think

it is an overly cynical assessment of the American people.
I agree that this country will respond to successful missions especially ones that can be sold as protecting the existence of the US and are finite in duration. I am confident that there is very little appetite in this country for open ended commitments accompanied with significant American loss of life for non existential purposes. Had we left Iraq quickly after unseating Hussein, the consensus would have been that it was a success no matter how much instability would have been sewn in the region. That was never likely to happen since the real motivation for the war was neither the search for WMD's or stopping collaboration between Sadaam and Al Queda. The goal was to project American power into the region on an awesome and permanent basis. This neo imperialist strategy would never have been peacefully accepted in the region and the resulting violence was destined to erode American support. The RW has been trying to erase the ghosts of Vietnam for decades. They have managed to reawaken us to the dangers of foreign adventurism. I believe there would be serious resistance to Bush widening the war into Iran.

[warren pease]

37. Overly cynical assessment...

Yeah, it really is a cynical assessment of the american people. But it's hard not to be cynical if you use majority behavior over the past six years as a predictor of future responses to the same stimuli, i.e., military action against Iran, and associated patriotic fervor and media cheerleading.

And it's not entirely their fault. If your exclusive or primary source of information is TV news -- and polls show that's the case for more than 90 percent of americans -- you're very unlikely to encounter anything other than the party line. To these people, Alan Combs is a flaming radical.

Even now, with bush popularity at historic lows and signs of life from congressional democrats, the posts in LBN and elsewhere demonstrate that mass media, and TV news in particular, are still out there shilling for the administration. And they'll continue to do so until their corporate masters decide that backing bush is a loser and it's time to line up behind another mainstream politician, possibly even a democrat, although I imagine that idea causes cold sweats and severe abdominal cramps. But thanks to the DLC, their fears are groundless.

Those who get their news from the internet are far less likely to be poisoned by the standard media spin. But I suspect those people are still a small minority and that CNN et al are still viewed as credible news sources by a substantial majority of americans. And as long as that remains true, the cynical view expressed by The Magistrate seems pretty credible.

And I'm not even addressing the mythological reasons for invading Iraq vs. the points you raise about projecting american power into the region. That isn't even on the radar screen in the american mainstream. Some of them still apparently believe the WMD lie, or the Al Qaeda connection lie, or the regime change lie, or the freedom's on the march lie, or the 9/11 connection lie, or the yellowcake from Niger lie, or (your favorite excuse here). Such is the state of foreign policy sophistication among americans who view TV news as a source of accurate information.


Cynically yours,

wp

[chieftain]

39. It is unfortunate that all you say about the news media is not

cynical but 100% accurate. The faith I have in the American people is tempered by my agreement with you on the quality of information that is available to them.

[Hart2008]

40. Republic and Empire

I am not sure I agree that there is a difference between neo-imperialism and imperialism. What we are doing in Iraq is classic imperialism, projecting American power by occupying a country. In this case the goal is to 1)protect the oil in Iraq for American interests, and 2)establish Iraq as a military base for projecting power to the entire region. Not just in Iraq, but projecting power to coerce Iran and Saudi Arabia. It can be of no small coincidence that the Saudi’s are getting nervous.

What we have been witnessing before our eyes is nothing less than the a transition of the United States from a Republic into an Empire:
When Rome made the transition in the first century B.C.
it became a vastly different entity. Its character changed. Its values
changed from participation to power, from popular sovereignty to the
sovereignty of the emperor, from resistant to corruption to corrupt. In
a few short months we have gone from a benign internationalist,
cooperative, alliance-based nation to a preemptive, unilateralist,
aggressive hyper-power.
Before America pursues the path of empire, we better be thinking
more about what we are doing and where it might lead.
Republic and Empire
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/blog/archives/000016.php

I don’t know of any other major political figure who is willing to discuss this issue. Certainly not the Senate clique who delegated the constitutional power to declare war to the Executive branch. In a republic the Constitution is the highest law of the land. In an empire, we must defer to the emperor, even if he has no clothes. It is time that we restore the Republic, and Gary Hart is the only political figure I have heard talk about this.

:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[chieftain]

42. You make good points about the republic/empire dichotomy

It is not just foreign policy that changes when a country embarks on an imperial course. The domestic impact is actively corrosive of democratic ideals. If any one has any doubt about this, the Bush/Cheney regime should convince them. All of the elements of a fascist/imperial state were being fostered:
- paranoid world view
- identification of the state with fundamentalist/nationalistic religion
- perpetual state of war
- supremacy of corporate interests
- ridicule/criminalization of dissenting opinion
- propaganda disguised as news
- press and legislative watchdogs muzzled
- suppression of voting rights
- corruption of electoral/legislative processes
That is the slippery slope we are on as a nation. I have not been aware of Hart's comments in this regard, but I will certainly pay attention to him and anyone else willing to bring this issue to the attention of the American people.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. I am with you 100%

and I'll vote Green if no candiate admits the truth of statement #1.

Admitting the inherent flaw of the plan is the only sure way to be sure it never happens again.

[GreenArrow]

32. "and I'll vote Green if no candiate admits the truth of statement #1"

You'll be voting Green then, because other than Kucinich and Gravel -- maybe -- none of the other prospective nominees will ever admit that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. I'm afraid that to some extent I disagree.

I don't think there was a way of invading Iraq that would have worked (by which I mean "the benefits to the people of Iraq would have outweighed the costs"), but if there had been I think it would have been the right thing to do.

I think military intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone was the right thing to do, and it would have been the right thing to do in Darfur.

In general, I think one should declare war on another country provided the following conditions are met:

1) the likely benefits in terms of preventing human suffering outweigh the likely costs.

and one of

2a) you are invading for the benefit of the populace of the country you're invading, to e.g. remove an oppressive regime and replace it with a better one; and you have sufficient support from them to provide a democratic mandate. In this case, nation-building must be a priority, and the war needs to end if at any point you no longer have that support.

or

2b) you are invading a country to prevent it doing something to other people. In this case, it must be clear what abuses you are trying to stop, and if that is accomplished the war must stop.


WWII was justified because 1 and 2b applied, as was Kosovo; in Darfur 1 and 2a applied. Iraq clearly wasn't justified, because although 2a arguably did apply initially (it now clearly doesn't), 1 very definately didn't.


So you're right that it wasn't just Bush's handling of the war that was at fault, in that there was no way of handling it that wouldn't have been catastrophic, but I don't agree that one should only declare war on selfish grounds of national interest.

[Solon]

30. I have to disagree, strongly...

While you acknowledge the the Iraq war wasn't completely justified, the problem is that NO nation goes to war for altruistic reasons, period, and that includes the United States. Because of this, the idea of a "humanitarian war" is doomed to failure from the start, and ANY war of aggression usually ends up killing far more people than it intended to help, regardless of the justifications.

WWII also does NOT apply to anything on your list, unless you are saying that Germany and Japan were trying to accomplish 1 and 2b, because, I believe they were the aggressors.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Kosovo was one example of a largely-altruistic war.

You're wrong about WWII, I think - Britain and France declared war on Germany, not vice versa, in response to German aggression directed at other nations (2b).

Remember that the relevant question is not "when is it a good idea for a war to happen?" but "when is it a good idea for our country to declare war?".

FWIW, I agree that virtually no war is going to be purely altruistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're all going to be worse than the alternative -
provided there are good reasons *as well as *the self-interested ones a war may be justified

[Solon]

38. Kosovo was an unstable element that could have spilled across borders...

NATO responded appropriately to keep the situation from getting out of control. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that we did it to HELP anyone but our allies through treaty obligations.

France and Britain's declarations of war were because they thought Germany under Hitler was a threat to themselves, and they were right. Hitler overstepped the bounds that they both set for him, they didn't care about what happened to Czechoslovakia and Austria, especially their Jews. What happened after Pearl Harbor is a classic example of this, Japan attacked, the United States declared war, and Hitler declared war against the U.S. He didn't do this out of any kindness towards the Japanese, nor did he do it for altruistic reasons, he did it because of the pact they signed to protect each other, and he thought the United States would be too busy in the Pacific, kicking Japan's ass, to help what remained of France and Britain on the European front.

As we know now, all the Allies were aware of the Holocaust before they freed the camps, and yet, while bombing German cities and manufacturing, they didn't bother bombing the tracks leading to these death camps. If I sound cynical, its because of the simple fact that no nation, particularly powerful ones, are altruistic in the least, as the old saying goes, power corrupts, and when we are the most powerful nation on the planet, how corrupt do you think we are?

[chieftain]

33. I appreciate your comments. Maybe we ought to distinguish

between unilateral decisions to go to war and UN sanctioned humanitarian efforts. I would characterize Iraq as an example of unilateral action, Tony Blair and the "Coalition of the Willing" notwithstanding.
The US, at least up until this debacle, occupies a unique place in the world due to its military power. We should avoid believing that because of the ability to take down a regime, we have the wisdom to know when and where this should be done. One of the enduring insights to come from the Vietnam War is that we cannot be the world's policeman. There are at least 2 reasons for this. One we don't have the power to be everywhere evil shows its head. And too often we have been able to ignore the evil done by friends of American commercial interests while actively working to suppress movements that might well lead to the better good for most of a country's inhabitants. Our track record in this area is more than troubling.
You mention Kosovo and I acknowledge that it is generally considered a success, but I have to tell you I am still queasy about a victory attained by bombing which resulted in mass killing of a civilian population. I supported our and NATO's efforts there but I cannot rejoice in it.
I am not a pacifist. I supported the deposing of the Taliban. I supported Clinton's attack on identified terrorist camps. I even supported Poppy Bush's efforts to push Sadaam out of Kuwait. But I knew Iraq would turn out badly and that it would weaken the US from a moral perspective. We Americans need to work on the assumption that we know little about the rest of the world and if military force is to be used, make sure it is necessary to protect the country. Not to let a deserter dress up in GI Joe clothes, prance across a carrier deck and call himself a "war president"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Sadly, I think you place too much emphasis on the UN.

I agree that one should require an international consensus before trying to claim that a war is justified, but I think that the only nations one should look to for that consensus are those which respect human rights.

For as long as Russia and China have as much power in the UN as they do, I do not think it can be regarded as a decent arbiter in such questions, sadly.

NATO has the reverse problem - it's somewhat too small to provide as much legitimacy as is desirable - but NATO consensus is a good start, especially if backed by other nations.



You say "I cannot rejoice in it" about Kosovo. I can't think of any war, ever, that was worth rejoicing about; the relevant standard is "was it better than the alternative", and Kosovo clearly was.


I'm afraid I disagree to some extent with you about "defending the country". I think that "national security" is one of the less good reasons to start a war, although it can qualify under my condition 2b in some extreme cases.

[chieftain]

44. Sadly, after Abu Graib, Gitmo and a policy that authorizes

renditions to countries that authorize torture, I have a hard time classifying the US under Bush as a country that respects human rights. And even if Bush were not in power, I am very leary of our leaders having enough real knowledge and altruism to be able to discern that the use of force is likely to result in a greater good for the most people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I think you're confusing two questions.

"When is it right to declare war" and "Can we trust our leaders only to declare war when it is right" are two unconnected issues.

[chieftain]

46. Given the reality that it is only our leaders who have the power

to create a state of war, the questions seem to have at least a passing connection with each other.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Only in one direction at most.

The answer to the first may influence the second, but one can (and should) answer the first before even considering the second.

One can work out what an ideal politician would do in a given situation without needing to consider what real, flawed politicians will do, and that's essentially what asking the question "under what circumstances should one declare war?" entails.

[Zhade]

56. You can't impose a democracy; the two ideas are completely incompatible.

NT!

[chieftain]

57. You speak words of wisdom. You would think that even the

simpleton in the WH would understand the simple truth of your statement. If not at the beginning of the war, 3000+ Americans KIA later
the lesson ought to have sunk in.

[mmonk]

41. Exactly.

That is why when our candidates say it was done wrong instead of it was wrong in the first place, I stay cool or at best luke warm towards that candidate and all the rationale people make won't change that.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Ditto for me!

We have to understand that this war was decided upon by an Establishment. That includes the executive branch which made its plans and used 911 to pursue those plans; it includes Congress, which, after 911, gave away its Constitutional rights to decide whether there would be a war, and wrote Bush a blank check; it includes the media which, for God's sake, said it was going to be embedded, and then lived up to that phrase in every way it possibly could. The media right now coming out four years later and saying there are problems with Walter Reed. That's shutting the gate after the cow got out. Four years after the cow got out.

ICONOCLAST: You say that 2003 was the turning point in the war. Could you elaborate on that?

CAPTAIN MAY: On June 25, 2003, Wesley Clark, who was pushing for the Democratic nomination, appeared on CNN's Crossfire, and actually spelled out the whole war equation, which was that the Bush people and the neo-cons, going way back into the 90s, had wanted this war. This war was a geo-political push to control oil and take care of Israeli political problems, and 911 was the excuse they needed.

After 911, they ramrodded us into a war that we were supposed to clean up neatly before China could gear up to be any kind of opposition. Basically, Wesley Clark said that the global war was a world war. It was shortly after his remarks that war critics and truth-tellers started chiming in on both sides of the Atlantic.

On July 6, Joe Wilson, in the New York Times, wrote an op-ed column that the Bush Administration's claims of Iraqi nuclear material were bogus.

At about the same time, David Kelly, one of the top WMD experts in the UK, was giving information to the BBC to the effect that Blair had "sexed up" the intelligence to go to war.

None of this is shocking now. We've since seen the Downing Street memoranda where the Bush Administration, prior to the invasion, said that it was going to "fix the intelligence" to justify the Iraq war.

Again, Wesley Clark was coming out and saying all this in late June, and Joe Wilson was saying so in early July, and David Kelly was saying so in July, to which voices I joined my own on July 8, two days after Joe Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times. My op-ed piece ran in the Houston Chronicle, which you might say kicked Bush in the other knee. The Wilson piece kicked him up in D.C., and then in Bush's home base of Houston, there was an op-ed by Captain Eric H. May which was entitled "Still Worried About the Quicksand War in Iraq" which basically said that everything I had predicted was coming true and we found ourselves in a new Vietnam.

That wasn't the most brilliant analysis, it was simply bold analysis. It was bold to say it, because it is what a good part of the Establishment was thinking by July, but was afraid to say.
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/

[Hart2008]

48. Sorry, but Gary Hart spoke out before Clark!

"CAPTAIN MAY: On June 25, 2003, Wesley Clark, who was pushing for the Democratic nomination, appeared on CNN's Crossfire, and actually spelled out the whole war equation, which was that the Bush people and the neo-cons, going way back into the 90s, had wanted this war... Basically, Wesley Clark said that the global war was a world war. It was shortly after his remarks that war critics and truth-tellers started chiming in on both sides of the Atlantic."

Hmmmmmm....

A Detour From the War on Terrorism
Sunday, March 9, 2003

The urgent necessity to disband terrorist networks abroad and to secure the American homeland has been replaced by the Bush administration's puzzling preoccupation with Saddam Hussein. He has become George Bush's White Whale, an obsession that has cost us international solidarity in eradicating terrorism, the goodwill of tens of millions of people worldwide and the role of benign democratic world leader...
...The war on terrorism is too serious to become the vehicle for settling old scores, either abroad or between neo-hawks and traditionalists in the administration. It is also too serious to become an excuse—a kind of foreign policy Trojan horse—to experiment with the new doctrine of preemption to replace containment. And if we really do intend to bring democracy to the Arab world at the point of a bayonet, the American people deserve the candid accounting we have not been given."
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/columns/columns_03_09_2003.php

AND

Why won't anyone listen to Gary Hart?
April 3, 2003
"I don't think they've shown a lot of leadership" on the war in Iraq, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., says of congressional Democrats. "They got caught -- they didn't want to be on the wrong side of the war. And when they voted for it, it tied their hands...I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart/index.html

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[chieftain]

50. Your last headline asks a pertinent question and begs another

which is: why should we push for a guy that no one listens to? It is apparent that you are affiliated in some way with a Hart boomlet. How about letting the rest of us in on what his strategy is, because at this point it looks pretty quixotic.

[Hart2008]

59. Largely, he wasn’t heard.

How many people know that on September 6th, 2001 the headline in the paper in Montreal read, “"Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America."? He called Condi Rice that same day. Her response was to forward the request to Cheney:
Condi Rice's other wake-up call
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart/index.html
(All indications are the Cheney is running the White House, but who is supervising Cheney?)
Why wasn’t that story reported here in US MSM?
Why was the report of the U.S. Commission on National Security, the most intensive review of defense policy since the end of World War II, not reported in the US MSM when it predicted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that could kill thousands?

Prior to 9-11 Hart was ostracized by the MSM.

The better question is: Why wasn’t his advice headed by people in power who did get the message?

If a candidate has the same values and beliefs that you present here, why wouldn’t you support that candidate?

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[chieftain]

60. I might. Why won't you respond to my questions about

Hart's strategy. I went to the web site; it was not operative. You seem to be part of a campaign for Hart, why won't you let the rest of us in on your insider's perspective on how Hart thinks he can be a major player in the '08 elections.

[Hart2008]

61. You sound like a reporter looking for inside information.

I do not post on Gary Hart’s behalf, nor am I paid. I am part of a group of loyal Hartistas hoping to recruit the former Colorado Senator and Co-chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century to run for President again as our candidate. Should he choose to run, he will run as he always has: On his ideas.

You are going well beyond the original topic of this thread. If my latest response in the www.RunGaryHart.com thread doesn’t answer your questions. I suggest you post again there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008 :kick:

[chieftain]

63. I am not a reporter and I did post on your thread that you cite.

There you told me that you were not new to DU although your post count was in the 40's. And you responded to my question on campaign strategy by telling me that I had fallen into a msm trap of focusing on the horse race aspects of politics.
So, although I am not a reporter I find it curious that someone with such an encyclopedic knowledge of Gary Hart's biography begins posting(at least under that name)prodigious amounts of information in what would seem to be a recruitment effort on the part of the former Senator.
Regardless of the assertion that I am trapped by the msm, it is of interest to me as to how someone who enters the race at this juncture plans to make an impact. I have the same question about the man I supported last time, Wes Clark. As I told you earlier, Hart is someone I would seriously consider supporting, if he is a serious candidate. All I have seen so far is a web page that is under construction and Lent biographical pieces about Hart's virtues.This non reporter, but self admitted political junkie, would like a little more beef on the bone regarding how Hart thinks he can win. I thought you could help.

[Hart2008]

64. It is no too late for a candidate to declare and win!

If you look at the other thread, others don't think it will be too late. Nor do I. He is well known with the best resume in the field.

Six months is an eternity in politics.

Hart has very loyal followers. The more you read his work, the more you will understand the attraction. Hart appeals to your intellect. He does not insult it.

Hart has vast experience in national campaigns.

He won't get in the race unless he feels he can compete.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[FrenchieCat]

51. Well Clark actually spoke up before June 2003........

I was just quoting the writer due to his statement that this war was more or less "sanctioned" long ago!

Here's a report on Clark from the Summer of 2002....

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

As well as Clark's appearance on Charlie Rose in September of 2002
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/wes_clark_on_charlie_rose_on_s.html

[Hart2008]

52. Hart earlier September 11, 2002 vs. Clark September 23, 2002

In 2003-4 Wes Clark was my second choice. I supported him until he dropped out. He is a good man. I take issue with the statement quoted that “It was shortly after his remarks that war critics and truth-tellers started chiming in on both sides of the Atlantic." To state that no one was questioning the administration’s design for a war in Iraq before Clark spoke about it, and everyone who questioned it was following his lead is simply not true.

“Here's a report on Clark from the Summer of 2002....”

The story was actually reported October 22, 2003. It refers to a reported conversation with Clark at a garden party in the summer of 2002 at which “There wasn't an audience”. I am at a loss to understand how someone could be speaking out about the planned war against Iraq with out an audience to hear him. Sounds like, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to here it, does it make a sound?” General talk at a garden party is not the same as an editorial to the New York Times or the Washington Post. In my book it doesn’t amount to publicly speaking out against a planned war. I don’t know what a “quasi-public” statement is. Either a statement is public or it is not. Off the record or background information from a general to a reporter which is later disclosed doesn’t qualify as publicly speaking out in my book. (I suspect many other generals where also expressing concerns about Iraq in a similar way.)

The first truly public statement from Clark you give as the interview with Charlie Rose on September 23, 2002. Twelve days prior, the following by Gary Hart was published on the first anniversary of 9-11:

Iraq and American Unilateralism
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/columns/columns/columns_09_11_2002.php
By GARY HART

“If we are at war against terrorism, that war's most visible battlefield for most Americans today is the luggage check at the nearest airport.

Meanwhile, 9/11 offered the first central organising principle for foreign policy and military action since the demise of "containment of communism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union eleven years ago. Now those whose ability to comprehend the world requires a villain are happily planning a new mission for the United States in the 21st century - eradicating evil from the world, starting with Saddam Hussein. Having helped to dispatch fascism in mid-20th century, and then successfully faced-off against expansionist communism in the late 20th century, those requiring a messianic purpose for America's role in the world have found it in the "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - and more vividly in the personification of evil, Saddam Hussein.
…
Having stagnated somewhere along Afghanistan's craggy border with Pakistan, the war on terrorism has migrated to Baghdad. If Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, the ability to deliver them and the will to do so, there will be a broad consensus among the American people to undertake military operations to prevent him from carrying out his will.
But some better showing must be made than has hitherto been done that those conditions have been met. Though US presidents find it inconvenient to remember this, the Army still does belong to the people. And as bereaved and furious as we still are post-9/11 at the attacks on unarmed civilians, political leaders must still make the case for potential loss of thousands of American military personnel, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives.
…
Yet, it is a minor irony that those in America who ridiculed Jimmy Carter's human-rights beliefs as the basis for a "realistic" foreign policy have now trumped him by seeking to make America the world's avenging angel.”

You may excused for not knowing this since it was published in The Times (of London) in the U.K. Gary Hart, even one year after the terrorist attack he had warned the Bush administration both as the Chairman of the US Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, and in a private conversation with Condi Rice on September 6, 2001, was still unable to have this article published on this side of the Atlantic. Hart continued to speak out against the planned Iraq war in October 2002.

President Bush Silent on Potential Costs of War with Iraq:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/article.asp?parentid=2229

Both Hart and Clark are speaking out against the war early. General Clark is highly intelligent and articulate. I think when comparing the two in their comments about Iraq I submit to you that Clark speaks more as a general with regard to the strategy and tactics of a war. Hart speaks more about the broader picture of war in our republican (small “r’) system of government. It is because of this that Hart is able to deconstruct the rationale for war, i.e., Bush and Rove’s propaganda, in a way that Clark speaking in strategic and tactical terms does not. Furthermore, Hart wisely counseled the Senate Democrats how to avoid the political trap that Bush and Rove set. The Senate Democrats fell in the trap and now are all compromised when raising the issue in the general election.

Hart served for 12 years in the Senate, the body of Congress that gives many Presidents the most trouble with its arcane rules and filibusters. Hart knows how they work. Clark doesn’t.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Zhade]

53. There's some truth right there.

NT!

[goodhue]

54. no doubt

[antiimperialist]

55. Some candidates focus on "failed strategy", even though strategy is irrelevant

It's our prescence in Iraq, not the strategy, that matters.
Strategy and success or failure in Iraq is irrelevant.
I agree with your conclusion that the Iraq war was immoral and unjustified, period. If X country invades the great US of America, I doubt any of us in the left and right would be analyzing what should be the best military strategy, number of troops, etc. required for the invading country to achieve "victory".

[baldguy]

58. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. Could it be possible that a Democratic candidate wanted the Iraq war?

would it be possible. Just asking?