You have to admit that Dean now looks like a genius...

[CTLawGuy]

Now that Iraq War favorables are at 31%, anyone who opposed the war in Iraq could take huge advantage. I remember when the primaries were still going on in full force, some people here were saying that anyone who opposed the war was unelectable. Current events have vindicated Dean's position. I think you have to hand it to him for sticking to his principles. His reward is the knowledge that in the end he was right.

Kerry needs to take a strong stand on this. First he should apologize for voting for IWR. Next he should advocate a plan that sets a hard date for troop withdrawal. In my opinion, he should advocate partitioning Iraq into 3 states corresponding with the three major ethnic groups: a Shiite state in the south, a Sunni state near Baghdad, and a Kurdish state in the north. Partitioning will do three good things:

1. It will curtail violence associated with a power vacuum. If there is a homogenous population in each state, it is less likely there will be violent conflict among factions, as there most certainly would be if the nation were left whole.

2. It will leave each state hopefully small enough as not to be too much trouble to neighboring countries, should they decide to make trouble.

3. It would allow each group a measure of independence. This is especially key for the Kurds in the north. It is what they've wanted for a long time.

--------------------------
Kerry needs to start kicking Bush when he's down and get out there with a clear alternative to decade-long occupation. I don't like his "stay the course, bring in the UN" rhetoric, granted Dean had similar ideas. However, I think now, events dictate that we need to get out ASAP.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. He was always very smart....

But on the subject of opposing the war, I always thought that was plain old common sense!

[CTLawGuy]

4. me too

I never thought the war was a liberal or conservative issue, but one of practicality. Empires are expensive and unstable.

[BlueEyedSon]

13. I was referring to the MINIMAL brains one needed to

see through the LIES that were tossed out to justify the war.

Real reasons:
1. Peak Oil
2. Petrodollar Hegemony.

PERIOD.

[truthspeaker]

2. "We told you so". Truth will out.

It's why we should base messages on the truth, not perception.

[Monte Carlo]

3. Dean was not some savior against the war.

He understood that there were times and places for force, especially against someone like Saddam Hussein.

From where I stand, the problem America has with the war is largely how bad its going, not that it happened in the first place.

[CTLawGuy]

7. of course he did understand the need for force

sometimes, and I agree, but in this case, he (as I) was adamant against it. The polls are actually showing that 31% think the war was "not worth fighting".

[Monte Carlo]

18. Dean was adamant against the rush that Bush wanted for war.

But he was not against the whole idea of war against Iraq. If I remember right, he was partial to other, more moderate Congressional resolutions, the type that someone like Bill Clinton would have engineered.

I like Dean, but I do not see him as some peacenik who knew something that the rest of us didn't know.

[CTLawGuy]

19. he was for Biden Lugar

which ONLY allowed force to be used for the purpose of eliminating WMD, NOT:

1. for "liberating" Iraq
2. for "gitting Saddam"
3. any other lame reason.


Bush wasn't for Biden Lugar precisely becuase it tied his hands as such. He wanted IWR, which was a blank check.


Its not unreasonable to support destroying dangerous WMD.

[Monte Carlo]

29. Well...

Nothing about the liberation of Iraq or the removal of Saddam Hussein as an end was in the IWR, either. All of that was tacked on by Bush, and quite frankly, I don't see what would have stopped Bush from tacking all of that onto the Biden-Lugar bill as well.

The IWR was not a blank check. The popular support Bush had at the time was the blank check.

[CTLawGuy]

33. I dont agree

if Bush had invaded under BL and then not found any WMD, he could not turn around and say he was doing it to liberate Iraq. He would have been put under investigation for violating the law.

I DO agree however that he did tack all the other reasons onto BL - that is how we got IWR. In fact the IWR was so vague and deferential that Bush didn't even need a reason to invade.

[Monte Carlo]

34. Violate the law? Who was going to investigate him?

Ashcroft's Justice Department? The GOP controlled House, or the Daschle-led Democrats in the Senate when the vote was made? The FBI? Even if they managed to legally pin something on Bush, which I seriously doubt, he'd be keeping things busy in the country with the next project. "We don't have time for that," people would say.

[CTLawGuy]

35. so you're suggesting he could just

wantonly flout whatever law he wanted and get away with it? Nixon has nothing on this guy then, I guess...

[Monte Carlo]

36. Nixon wasn't almost impeached for the crime...

... he was almost impeached for the coverup, which is what will really get you in trouble in Washington. Plus, Nixon didn't have friendly control in Congress.

[zoeyfong]

39. Nice try. EVERYONE KNEW that IWR was the green light for war.

Does this party have no shame?

[Monte Carlo]

42. No, we didn't know that.

None of us had a crystal ball. "Everyone knew" means nothing, and hindsight is always 20/20.

43. revisionism

Revisionism pure and simple to say people did not know.
Lots of people "knew", at least as well as you can know these things.

[Monte Carlo]

44. Yeah? You didn't know, either.

You thought you knew. 'Lots of people' is a poor foundation. Unless you had some unique information about what was happening, and I'm talking diamond in the rough, you didn't know.

To play Devil's advocate, Amb. Joe Wilson - the man who outed Bush's yellowcake-uranium story as bullshit and who's wife was outed as a CIA agent in turn - said in an interview that he would have most likely voted for the IWR as it was. He knew Bush and his handlers were full of shit, but that vote was more than Bush.

46. that's why "know" is in quotes

because I knew you were playing semantic games

It's still revisionism in my opinion and in a lot of people's opinion, whether you like the phrase a "lot of people" or not, you know what I mean.
Good luck convincing them it isn't.

[Monte Carlo]

47. Semantics has nothing to do with it.

A gut feeling is not a reason. Popular opinion is not a reason. The possible existence of weapons of mass destruction is a very good reason and cannot be dismissed because of new leadership in the White House.

And by the way, you've got it backwards. Good luck convincing the rest of us that it is. "Them" is far from a voting majority in this country.

52. if IWR wasn't the green light for war what was it?

the red light?
Back to the original know statement.
of course it was the green light.
people may not have known if or if not there were WMD's, I agree, but what else could the IWR have been except a green light?
Whatever side, majority or minority you are on I think would say it was a green light, it seems clear to me.
I wasn't talking about gut feelings.

& I'm getting too busy at work right now to continue for awhile.

[sangh0]

64. What it was

is called "a resolution"

IOW, a "vote for IWR" is a "vote for IWR"

76. and?

what did the resolution authorize?

I can not answer this also and thus not further anything just like your post essentially does.

I get tired of these rhetorical devices.

[sangh0]

85. Bait and switch

Your earlier post asked the question "if IWR wasn't the green light for war what was it?"

Now you've switched to "what did the resolution authorize?"

If you're tired of rhetorical devices, I suggest you stop using them

[CTLawGuy]

48. no,

noooo-body knew Bush was hell-bent on going to war :eyes:

[Monte Carlo]

50. Hey, I had my reasonable doubts.

I never thought Bush would actually do something that self-righteous, selfish, and stupid. I thought that Bush would never actually go that far, that he was just talking big against Iraq to gain popularity just as Saddam talked big against America to gain popularity.

I know there were some very good reasons to believe that Bush had an agenda that reckless. But there were at the time some reasonable doubts, and at the same time, there was a whole pre-existing situation with Saddam and weapons.

[CTLawGuy]

51. you have good faith in humanity, friend

"I never thought Bush would actually do something that self-righteous, selfish, and stupid. I thought that Bush would never actually go that far, that he was just talking big against Iraq to gain popularity just as Saddam talked big against America to gain popularity."

This was the man who stole the 2000 election and shamelessly exploited 9/11. I put NOTHING past him. IMHO, all the people who pushed so hard against IWR knew it was a ticket to certain war, but someone didn't want to be a massachusetts liberal...

[Monte Carlo]

77. I suppose that's where you and I differ.

I did not see Bush as capable of war. Sleaziness sure, but not what has happened.

I don't agree that Kerry voted for it for campaigning reasons. I guess I have a little more faith in him, too. I read his speech at the time, and he had some good reasons that had nothing to do with Bush. It's been very consistent with his personal stances against Saddam Hussein since the mid 90's, and I think he's generally correct. Kerry has tended to be hawkish with Iraq.

Kerry is always going to be a Massachusetts liberal. I'm not sure that all the maneuvering in the world would change that, because he just can't run fast enough from it.

[CTLawGuy]

80. I knew at the exact moment, Bush started

talking about going to war with Iraq, that he was going to invade. If there was any doubt, would millions of people have sent in letters and phone calls to Congress to vote "no" on IWR?

[NashVegas]

69. I Can Tell You Who Knew

Everyone in Utopia, an online, multi-player (60,000 +) game, where people learn to recognize the difference between propaganda that's meant as a trial balloon, and propaganda that signifies an intent for an all-out brawl.

The Iraq pre-war propaganda was not a case of someone licking their finger and testing the wind. The Iraq pre-war propaganda signaled an intent to go in and the effort to put the US population into mental preparedness for it. On the day after 9/11 the BFEE was already linking Iraq to the WTC crashes. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know the plans were already laid.

[Nicholas_J]

72. So was Kerry

IN fact, he did an op-ed piece for the New York TImes entitled "Do Not Rush To War, Mr President". Dean gave considerable public support for unilateral action in Iraq prior to trying to take advantage of the anti-War movement, statting so on numerous occasions in public, on meet the press as early as September, 2002, on Meet the Press, and later, in Salon.com interviews.

[wtmusic]

8. The very reason it's going badly

is because it was a bad idea from the start. The rest of the world knew it; we chose not to listen to them.

[Monte Carlo]

10. Well I don't think so.

The rest of the world was not as united against the war as it was made out to be. The imperial actions of Bush aside, most everyone in the world could appreciate the need to keep Saddam Hussein under control.

[wtmusic]

20. Then why didn't they support us in the "coalition"?

60% of the world's nations representing over 90% of the world's population were against the war.

Keeping Saddam Hussein under control by launching an illegal invasion of his country, throwing international law out the window, and killing 50,000 people in the process? Anyone who supported that is severely misguided.

[Monte Carlo]

30. Because they didn't like Bush.

And who can blame them? You must seperate the threat that Saddam did pose from Bush's little empire. Bush exploited a legitimate threat for his own ends.

>>Keeping Saddam Hussein under control by launching an illegal invasion of his country, throwing international law out the window, and killing 50,000 people in the process? Anyone who supported that is severely misguided.<<

No one in their right mind would be for that. That's not what I'm talking about. The THREAT of force is what kept Saddam under control, not the actual attack.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. We were keeping Saddam under control

that is exactly why the war was not necessary.
Care to show some stats that prove your point? The world was against this war.

[Monte Carlo]

32. Stats? Are you kidding?

Do you own research.

You talk to me as if you were talking to someone else.

[zoeyfong]

41. Get real. Opinion polls in virtually EVERY country in the world

showed the majority of the population against the war. And Sadaam was already well "under control."

[Monte Carlo]

45. If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

Be careful with polls. They are measurements, not tools.

Saddam was under control with a game called brinkmanship, and it is a dangerous game. The only way a gangster like Saddam behaves if there is a real sense that he will be destroyed if he goes too far. Military action against Iraq had been slow-boiling for years during Clinton. Every once in a while, you'd hear stories about our latest bombings of Iraq. Bush took a large, precision machine and threw a wrench in it. He purposely drove us over the edge in brinkmanship.

[zoeyfong]

74. Iraq was not a threat, and the known costs of war far outweighed

the unknown, but most probably minimal, benefits to be gained. As was said at the time, Sadaam was homicidal, but not suicidal. He was not going to use WMD against us or give them to terrorists, and that's *if* he had them. That whole scare-story was pure bunk.

[zoeyfong]

40. Yep. There is NO WAY this war could have gone any other way.

It was fatally, fundamentally flawed from day 1. A lot of people knew it. Unfortunately America (including many dems) did not live up to the high standards it pretends to stand for. We were all to eager to rush in, to 'get even' for 911; nevermind the inconvenient problems with truth, rationality, and justice. This is not America's finest hour, to be sure, and Bush didn't do it all by himself. Many, many, many others share the blame.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. no one ever said he was a pacifist.

I disagree that people don't think we never should have been there. That is exactly what people are saying. Don't tell me you still think this war was a good idea? For what possible reason? It was unjust, based on lies and thousands of people are dead.

[Monte Carlo]

31. But he has the 'clear alternative', whatever that is.

Dean is the man with the clear vision of what this country is supposed to be, as opposed to Bush for almost every political issue. So the story goes, anyway.

And no, I haven't ever thought this war was a good idea. I don't need a reminder about its costs.

[wryter2000]

5. Deaniac here

My Dean for America sign is sitll in the window. Dean wasn't a genius, he was just honest. As much as I wanted him running the country, I think he was too honest to get elected. I think if he can't be president, he's right where he should be -- speaking up loudly while still supporting our candidate. He looks pretty happy doing it, imho, and I'm sure his wife is relieved she doesn't have to be First Lady.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. exactly, he was honest

Many other politicians knew the war was not just, but voted for it anyway.

[wtmusic]

6. The 3-state solution would never work for one reason

Natural resources. Dividing up the wealth will be impossible to do fairly.

[jay-3d]

14. 3 states

you need 2 states or 4 states. 3 is a bad number... ever try living with 2 roommates. 2 always alien against 1.

[JI7]

9. even Nader thinks those who voted for IWR are the best vp choices

edwards and gephardt.

[CTLawGuy]

12. well I dont have a high opinion of what

Nader thinks.

[JI7]

15. isn't Nader anti war ?

[CTLawGuy]

17. yes

but it doesnt mean I agree with him on everything. Im sure he didnt suggest Edwards or Gephardt BECAUSE they voted for the war.

For the record, while Edwards would be fine, I would be upset with Gephardt as VP.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. apparently not

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. Nader is pro-Nader. Period. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

25. Nader is a nut

now we should listen to him? LOL

[lastliberalintexas]

28. The best choices to get him

more than 5% of the vote, that is. :eyes:

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. National Security Is Still A Big Issue With The Voters

And the Democratic nominee can ill afford to seem like he or she is soft on national security. Kerry is in a poor position to advocate "cutting and running" since that action would further diminish the U.S. standing in Iraq. I think Kerry needs to emphasize that staying the course will require a huge investment in blood, money and time, and that the people responsible for those unnecessary expeditures are the Straussians and the puppets they controlled in the Bush administration.

Plus if there is going to be a partitioning plan, I hope it is not imposed from a position of imperial power and that the territories will be negotiated between the three parties. How peaceful the negotiations and the aftermath will be is anybody's guess.

[CTLawGuy]

16. that's a prescription for failue...

(no offense intended)

"I think Kerry needs to emphasize that staying the course will require a huge investment in blood, money and time, and that the people responsible for those unnecessary expeditures are the Straussians and the puppets they controlled in the Bush administration."

especially if Bush comes out with a Nixonian "secret plan" to remove troops.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. agreed... and I think if Dean were not campaigning for Kerry

He would also be ahead of the curve on this issue. Right now I think he is doing his best not to undermine Kerry's message. I would love to see them modify the message to match the new facts. The iraqi people do not want us there. We need to turn over power to the UN or the Iraqi people will never accept whatever we do.

[TexasSissy]

27. We don't need flip flopping from Kerry.

He voted for the IW, and he should stand by that vote. His position, as I understand it, is he gave the admin. the authority he needed so that it would have strong authority for making its case at the U.N. and in threatening Saddam. Bush was never supposed to go off on a tangent and start the war w/o world & U.N. approval.

Kerry's problem with the war is HOW Bush got us into it. Not that it happened. Kerry thinks that had diplomacy and leadership been used, we could've ousted Saddam possibly w/o violence. Alternatively, we could've gone in with U.N. approval and world troops. He should stand by his position.

[zulchzulu]

37. Kerry has NEVER flip flopped on the IWR

I'm sick of explaining this to people.

They say: "Kerry voted for the war".

That is a complete Hannityesque lie.

Kerry voted for the UN, not the "war".

He voted for the President to keep his word and work with the UN, which was to continue with their searches for WMDs. If they found WMDs and needed help, a multinational force with the UN would take out the threat of WMDs as a last resort. As a last resort. As a last resort. AS A LAST RESORT!

Get it?

[Lefty Pragmatist]

38. We get it.

But it's disingenuous. Kerry (hell, all of us) knew that armed with IWR Bush would jam his bristling, armed penis into Iraq on any pretext to avenge Daddy. (Now, there's an image...).

I am 100% behind Kerry, but he ducked voting against IWR because (1) he knew it would be political suicide in the primaries as well as the general election, and (2) like a lot of people, he probably thought getting rid of SH before he got his hands of real WMD was a pretty sane idea. AFAIAC, that's intelligent politics and a defensible ethical stand. I gots no problem with it.

[CTLawGuy]

49. again

if you sign somebody's death warrant, but claim you are signing an order to give him a medal, he still dies and it's still your fault.


It's not the intent of the vote that's important but the physical outcome. Kerry should have known Bush was going to go to war, I did.

Furthermore, if he's voting "for the UN", why didnt he vote for a resolution that REQUIRED a UN resolution before going to war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Again

if you authorize the police and courts to arrest and punish murderers, and innocent people are arrested and punished instead, was it your fault, or the fault of the police and courts?

[CTLawGuy]

57. that doesnt parallel

the parallel would be:

If you authorize the police to arrest innocent people, and urge them not to use it, but they do anyway, it is your fault.


If your analogy was true, then Kerry would have authorized Bush to use military force in general (not specific to Iraq), as long as it was just. And then of course, he would have invaded Iraq, which would have been unjust.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Your post makes no sense whatsoever

If you authorize the police to arrest innocent people

That would be valid if the IWR said "authorize the President to invade Iraq even if it cooperates with the UN inspectors and has no WMDs"


The IWR was not adhered to by Bush, in spite of the lies that are spread repeatedly on DU.



BTW, the President doesn't need authority from Congress to use force; Clinton proved that in Kosovo.


IWR:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the president "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

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;

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;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the president 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 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the president and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas 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 Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

and Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

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

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the president shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The president shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 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.

[CTLawGuy]

78. If Bush didn't follow the IWR

then where is the outrage? Why didn't Kerry call him out at the time of the invasion? He shoukd have known about the illegality of it when the first soldier set foot in the country. Can a president REALLY disobey the law and just get away with it?


Bull, the resolution was what Bush wanted, because it was vague. he took advatage of that vagueness to invade a country for lies. and Kerry helped him. For that he should at least apologize.

Furthermore, the resolution did not specifically remove authority to invade Iraq even if it cooperates. As long as the president determines Iraq is a "threat."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. WTF?

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[CTLawGuy]

83. ok,

Touche.


but he still made a mistake voting for the resolution. And where was his call for Bush to be held LEGALLY accountable for supposedly violating the law of Congress? Nowhere does he say that Bush violated IWR.

Did Kerry support Ted Kennedy's resolution of January 2003 to revoke IWR?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.RES.32:

He sure wasn't falling all over himself to cosponsor it.

[Nederland]

84. Thanks for posting this

After reading it I'm wondering how anyone can believe that Bush violated the IWR. It completely gives the power to determine whether or not to act in the hands of the president, not Congress. The relevant phrase, I must point out, is right before the section you highlighted. IMHO, its rather curious that you chose to omit the phrase "his determination that" from the part you bolded. That's the key phrase. Basically this means that all Bush had to do is go to Congress after taking military action and say "it is my determination that further diplomatic action is pointless." It doesn't say that the UN,. Congress or anyone else has to agree with Bush. It places the decision entirely in Bush's hands.

And Kerry voted for it.

[zulchzulu]

55. Listen to Kerry's words

http://www.writersact.com/kerry/media/kerry-war.mp3
Warning Bush not to rush to war in Iraq (March 1, 2003)

[CTLawGuy]

58. even the Devil

can quote scripture. Words mean nothing, especially when they contradict with actions.

[dkf]

73. Bush sold Kerry a bill of goods...Kerry got taken by a con.

I wasn't sold and I didn't get taken. I told my Rep before the vote to BEWARE of Bush "facts", pointing out the whole Bush I lie about Saddam Hussein having 100,000 troops on the Saudi Border during the 1st gulf war.

I want a President who is savvier than me, not more GULLIBLE. Kerry does not strike me as someone who can sniff out con men and shysters. He is just as liable to get taken as any other idiot out there which is not a good thing in a person running for the most powerful position in the world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Dean pandered on the war issue like he did on everything.

The man is just not honest. What a disaster he would have been as the nominee...

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Right, that's why Kerry appears with him as often as possible

:eyes:

[sangh0]

62. Correction

It's why Dean appears with Kerry

[Cheswick2.0]

119. nope

Dean is helping Kerry not the other way around.

59. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Dean?

what is so hard about giving him some credit?
He's doing a lot for the Democratic party.
He seems to have put his ego aside for the moment.
I think his example is a good one for us to follow.

[sangh0]

65. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Kerry?

Funny how when people attack Kerry, you defend them citing free speech and the need for dissent, ideas which seem to have since evaporated.

75. I defend the right of people to attack Dean also

I just don't understand why it is so important.

Two different things. That is, I'm not saying people don't have the right to attack Dean. Of course they have the right. You're misrepresenting what I wrote.

I'm not surprised though, you use this rhetorical device constantly.

Plus even if what you say is true, which it's not, Kerry is still a candidate, Dean isn't.

[sangh0]

86. Double standards are hypocritical

I just don't understand why it is so important.

Your curiousity isn't aroused when it's Kerry who is being attacked, or any other Dem for that matter.

Two different things. That is, I'm not saying people don't have the right to attack Dean.

But no one has said that people don't have a right to attack Dean, so your defense of that right is nothing more than a straw man. You are refuting an argument that no one is making.

'm not surprised though, you use this rhetorical device constantly.

I did not bring up the issue of people's right to criticize; You did. Many times. Funny how you never got tired of it until I used it.

Plus even if what you say is true, which it's not, Kerry is still a candidate, Dean isn't.

So when DUer's criticize Limbaugh, you'll complain about it because Limbaugh is not a candidate?

I find your arguments here very expedient since you have argued the exact opposite in the past.

88. point by point

I just don't understand why it is so important.

Your curiousity isn't aroused when it's Kerry who is being attacked, or any other Dem for that matter.

You have no way of knowing if my curiousity is aroused or not when Kerry is attacked. All you know is that I commented on it with Dean.

Two different things. That is, I'm not saying people don't have the right to attack Dean.

But no one has said that people don't have a right to attack Dean, so your defense of that right is nothing more than a straw man. You are refuting an argument that no one is making.

Seems to me this exchange that follows in italics implies that you think I think it's wrong to attack Dean and ok to attack Kerry, since it was a reply to my question. If you're going to claim you didn't mean to have that implication, fine.


59. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Dean?


what is so hard about giving him some credit?
He's doing a lot for the Democratic party.
He seems to have put his ego aside for the moment.
I think his example is a good one for us to follow.


65. Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Kerry?


Funny how when people attack Kerry, you defend them citing free speech and the need for dissent, ideas which seem to have since evaporated.

*******

I'm not surprised though, you use this rhetorical device constantly.

I did not bring up the issue of people's right to criticize; You did. Many times. Funny how you never get tired of it until I used it.




Again here you are saying I brought up the right of people to criticize which I did not do. I didn't say anything about their right to criticize. I did not bring up people's right to criticize Again, that is a complete misrepresentation.I categorically deny ever having said anywhere that people do not have the right to criticize. I consider that to be slander. All I asked was why people still felt it necessary to go over the old ground of whether Dean should have been the nominee. The original poster may have the opinion that Dean should have been the nominee and may have brought it up, but it just looked to me like the post was contending that Dean had it right (implying of course that he should have been the nominee) But you can think someone had it right and not think they should be the nominee.


Of course I can be tired of rhetorical devices in others, that I engage in at times. I'm not perfect by any means.

[sangh0]

93. Weak points

You have no way of knowing if my curiousity is aroused or not when Kerry is attacked. All you know is that I commented on it with Dean

I noticed you make no attempt to defend the way you have reacted to criticism of Kerry and how it differs from your reaction when people attack Dean. You don't even deny the lack of curiosity. You only refute the notion that I can detect this lack of curiousity

Seems to me this exchange that follows in italics implies that you think I think it's wrong to attack Dean and ok to attack Kerry, since it was a reply to my question. If you're going to claim you didn't mean to have that implication, fine.

Please note that in my previous post I note how it was YOU that raised the issue of one's right to vote. You brought it up in other, earlier, threads, but for some unexplainable reason, it is no longer an issue when it comes to criticizing Dean.

Again here you are saying I brought up the right of people to criticize which I did not do.

Yes YOU have brought this issue up many times, in many threads, but for some unexplained reason, you are now arguing that it is inappropriate for me to make reference to your earlier arguments

I categorically deny ever having said anywhere that people do not have the right to criticize.

Another straw man. No one has claimed you have said there is no right to criticize. The claim is that you have (accurately) argued that people DO have a right to criticize, but for some unexplained reason, you are arguing that it is inappropriate to make that argument in this thread.

I asked was why people still felt it necessary to go over the old ground of whether Dean should have been the nominee.

That's not true. If it were, you would have criticized the original post, which goes over the old ground of whether Dean should have been the nominee. Your objection is not to rehashing. Your objection is to those who criticize Dean, an objection that you have never raised when someone has criticized another candidate or public figure.

Do you really think that your objections have nothing to do with your support for Dean?

96. freudian slip

"Please note that in my previous post I note how it was YOU that raised the issue of one's right to vote. You brought it up in other, earlier, threads, but for some unexplainable reason, it is no longer an issue when it comes to criticizing Dean."


right to VOTE?

no, right to criticize.
I have never said people don't have the right to criticize & I certainly have never said they do not have the right to vote.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that I have said this, I know I haven't said it, because I know what I believe and because of what I believe I would not have said that people do not have the right to criticize.

this is obviously pointless, continuing this.

[sangh0]

97. yes, a slip

I have never said people don't have the right to criticize & I certainly have never said they do not have the right to vote.

You have defended criticism of Kerry on the basis that people have a right to criticize, but for some unexplained reason, you don't consider that a defense for Dean criticism.

100. I consider it a perfectly legitimate defense

All I asked was --
Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Dean?
what is so hard about giving him some credit?
He's doing a lot for the Democratic party.
He seems to have put his ego aside for the moment.
I think his example is a good one for us to follow

I don't see how that says they don't have the right to criticize.
I don't see how that says that I don't consider the right to criticize as being a legitimate defense of criticizing Dean.

(also see the title of my post 75 -- I defend the right of people to attack Dean also)

To try to step outside of my own possible defensiveness (whether I succeed or not) - I'm sure that some people would advocate the point of view that you say I am advocating, your quarrel is with them, not with me. I am not advocating that people should not criticize Dean. They should feel completely free to do so & be free to do so, as far as I am concerned. All I asked is why they thought it was so important to attack him in the context of the original post & why they wouldn't give him some credit. I think I've definitely gotten an answer to my question implicit in a lot of the comments in this thread.

[sangh0]

102. That's a double standard

All I asked was --Why is it so important for people to keep attacking Dean?

You could have asked the same question about those who keep attacking Kerry, but for some unexplained reason, you don't.

what is so hard about giving him some credit?

Why don't you ask this when people attack Kerry?

He's doing a lot for the Democratic party.

So is Kerry, but you only raise this point when it's YOUR preferred candidate who is being attacked.

I don't see how that says that I don't consider the right to criticize as being a legitimate defense of criticizing Dean.

It doesn't. The point is that it is also a legitimate defense of criticizing Kerry, but for some unexplained reason, you never mentioned it.

All I asked is why they thought it was so important to attack him in the context of the original post

No one said it was important to attack Dean. For some reason, you assume that people who criticize Dean are "attacking" him and that they consider it "important" to do so. For some unexplained reasons, you have never assumed that the people who criticize Kerry were "attacking" him, and never assumed that they considered it "important" for them to do so.

You come to different conclusions when the circumstances are almost identical with the major difference being that in one case it's Kerry, and with the other it's Dean. You come to different conclusions based on who it is.

104. You are making far too many assumptions

about what my act of ommission means because I decided to make a comment/question.

So I happened to ask the question about Dean and have not about Kerry.
So what? Doesn't mean I don't think Kerry has done a lot for the party also etcetera etcetera etcetera.

This is not on the level of alerts or anything like that because I reserve that for posters who advocate death of leaders, but I really do wish you'd stop these silly speculations about what my conclusions are. It's like you expect some sort of loyalty oath or something.

Actually I don't know what you expect.
At the risk of drawing conclusions myself I get the definite impression that if someone doesn't agree with you 100% (unless you know they are a Kerry supporter) you will argue with them forever.

That's why I said it was pointless to continue.

[sangh0]

105. No, I'm not

On numerous occasions, you have defended those who have criticized Dems, using the same set of arguments. Now that someone is criticizing Dean, you have forgotten those arguments.

But it's just coincidence. You see criticism of Dems, and react by thinking that it's OK. You see criticism of Dean, and your reaction is different, but that's just coincidence and has nothing to do with your support for Dean.

107. I never said people Should not criticize Dean

no matter how many times you claim this it's still not going to make it true.

I defend the right of people to criticize Dean.
My post was not about their right it was about wondering why they thought it was important. Period. It was a question.Period.
What is so hard to understand about that?
How many times do I have to repeat that.
period.


No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.No I'm not. Yes you are.

[sangh0]

108. You questioned why people would criticize Dean

and assumed that it was "important" to them. You never did that before. Why the sudden change? Are you going to say it has nothing to do with how you feel about Dean?

My post was not about their right it was about wondering why they thought it was important.

A question you never asked when it was someone other than Dean who was being criticized. You have yet to explain the discrepancy. You haven't even denied the discrepancy, or that it is the result of bias on your part.

111. ok

I thought I had, maybe I haven't.

I posted it because of an essentially vicious attack on Dean by
Feanorcurufinwe (1000+ posts) Wed May-26-04 01:55 PM

53. Dean pandered on the war issue like he did on everything.
The man is just not honest. What a disaster he would have been as the nominee...

If it is a sudden change it does have to do with how I feel about Dean.
It's not really a change though. I just got riled up because of how I feel about Dean and responded.
If someone made a similar attack on Kerry (saying he was just not honest and would have been a disaster as the nominee or is a disaster)
it's probably less likely that I would have responded, but it doesn't mean that I would have not also thought that it was uncalled for. I just wouldn't have gotten riled up quite the same way.
I also would probably be less likely to respond because of the reason I stated earlier regarding that Kerry is the nominee -- that is I would expect attacks on the nominee to be occurring, but would think that attacks on someone who is no longer a candidate to be odd. If someone attacked Clark or Edwards I would have the same response as I did regarding Dean. So my response is more specific to people that are no longer candidates (although just to muddy the waters, I probably wouldn't be particularly concerned about people attacking Lieberman)
So I'm slightly inconsistent? Isn't everybody?
So I'm not going to deny the discrepancy, you're right.

In the context of Darboy's original post, I guess I understand why the opposite view gets dredged up if I think about it more. But it still strikes me as kind of odd.

[sangh0]

113. I don't buy it, kid

I posted it because of an essentially vicious attack on Dean

There has been far more vicious, and false, attacks against other Dems like Kerry, Clark, etc (ex. Drudge's intern "affair", and "Clark is a Republican", "Kerry is Bush*-lite" etc), and the viciousness never seemed to bother you before. And when people started threads asking why these ridiculous attacks were being pursued, YOU DEFENDED those vicious attacks. "Viciousness" has never stopped you before, but now it's Dean, so now you get offended.

It's not really a change though. I just got riled up because of how I feel about Dean and responded.

At least you're willing to admit that it is bias.

If someone made a similar attack on Kerry (saying he was just not honest and would have been a disaster as the nominee or is a disaster)
it's probably less likely that I would have responded, but it doesn't mean that I would have not also thought that it was uncalled for.

Actually, that HAS happened to Kerry, and instead of defending Kerry, you defended the vicious attack.

If someone attacked Clark or Edwards I would have the same response as I did regarding Dean

It has happend to both Clark and Edwards.

So I'm slightly inconsistent? Isn't everybody?

More than "slightly inconsistent". When it comes to criticizing Dems, the consistency you have shown is to support and defend those who are attacking.

Except when it's Dean who is being attacked.

114. I was trying to make peace

I see that is useless.
Why is that?
Certainly not a very enlightened perspective on your part despite your posting name & I do know a bit about Buddhism having attended and received a degree from a Buddhist school.

I still defend and support the right of people to attack and criticize Dems including Dean. I was not saying that people should not attack and criticize Dean in my original post or that they did not have the right to do so. I've said this over and over and spelled it out and you still don't get it.

Truth be told, at this point, my response to you is pity.

[sangh0]

116. Be like that

I didn't say that you are being dishonest. I did say that you are being biased, a charge that even you admit is a possibility.

IMO, it would be disrespectful for me to not raise my concerns. Doing so would be the same as treating you as if you could not handle it. Like a child. Instead, I treat you like an adult who is capable of explaining your reasonings and defending your opinions. If that was a mistake, I apologize.

Certainly not a very enlightened perspective on your part despite your posting name & I do know a bit about Buddhism having attended and received a degree from a Buddhist school.

Then you ought to know that many Buddhist master were known for their temper. They've been known to even whip their disciples. The only whip I own is a virtual one. It stings, but leaves no marks.

I still defend and support the right of people to attack and criticize Dems including Dean. I was not saying that people should not attack and criticize Dean in my original post or that they did not have the right to do so. I've said this over and over and spelled it out and you still don't get it.

Yes, you do. But you only question the attacks (and make assumptions about the attackers motives) when they are targeted against Dean.

117. No need to apologize

IMO, it would be disrespectful for me to not raise my concerns. Doing so would be the same as treating you as if you could not handle it. Like a child. Instead, I treat you like an adult who is capable of explaining your reasonings and defending your opinions. If that was a mistake, I apologize.

I can take it, no problem. Even if I get a little frustrated in the course of the explanation.

[Nazgul35]

123. I wouldn't worry too much...

Certain DUers feel the need to piss a circle around the forums....they are simply marking territory (no matter which candidate they supported)....


You also have to wonder why, if people truly feel that a certain individual is not a factor or would have been a complete disaster, that they spend so much time patrolling the boards looking for any thread that may bring up that persons name....

Seems like a lot of work over someone who doesn't matter....what did Shakespeare say again....oh yeah...

Me thinks she doth protest too much...

Some people have ____(insert candidate of choice here)___ issues.....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. I was responding to a post that said:

"You have to admit that Dean now looks like a genius..." because of his alleged stance on Iraq.


I didn't bring it up; I didn't launch some off-topic attack on Dean -- I responded to a post.


No, I don't have to admit that, because I don't believe a single word that comes out of Howard Dean's mouth. I think he is completely unprincipled and dishonest. I am totally in favor of him campaigning for Kerry and urging his supporters to back Kerry, and I am in favor of the goals of DFA. But he lied repeatedly during the campaign, and based on that, I don't trust him.

That's why I think he would be a good choice as head of the DNC -- it is a position well-suited for an unethical politician who has no qualms about shading the truth - or lying - in order to advance his agenda.

[JHBowden]

61. Dean had less electability for other reasons.

Yeeargh, confederates, the Soviet Union, skiing, unpreparedness at debates, no foreign policy experience, etc.

Dean did have several strengths going for him, being pro-gun, being a fiscal conservative, pro-business, pro-law and order, etc., but he wouldn't have been able to capitalize on them making an error a day. I love Dean and supported him for months, but since the primaries are over, there is no reason to hide the obvious.

An apology would be the dumbest thing Kerry could do. The insanos on the left won't vote for him anyway; if Kerry apologized they would join it with all of the rightwingers and the corporate media denouncing him as a waffler. Fuck that.

[CTLawGuy]

79. well kerry had similar disavantages

saying "fuck" in a rolling stone interview, forgetting whose medals he threw over the fence, being boring and vapid at debates, and no executive experience.


Also, it's not flip-flopping when the course of events causes you to realize you made a mistake. Besides, if Kerry was truly against the war, he could apologize for taking the action of voting for the resolution and still be consistent.

[mzmolly]

63. He always has looked like a genius. As for Kerry, he is doing better poll

wise agains an incumbent (considering the time) then any other challenger before him.

I was surprised to hear this on the news last night.

[sangh0]

66. Really? I "have to"???

I really, really, doubt that.

[Nederland]

70. Will he look like a genius in November?

That's the key question. Sure, Iraq War favorables are at 31% right now, but what will they be in November when people vote. The polls on Iraq demonstrate one thing: public opinion on the war is not solid. People have been going back and forth on this thing since it started and there is nothing to prevent it from going back up in the next five months.

This is the really odd thing about this election. Everything hinges on what happens in Iraq, and neither Bush nor Kerry really has any control over how things will turn out there. At this point, the US cannot win the war by itself and Bush is dependent on the international community and Iraqis themselves to straighten this mess out. Its out of his control.

Here's the bottom line. By November the economy is going to be good enough that Kerry won't be able to use it as an issue. It all boils down to Iraq. If Bush can pull off some miracle and get a more multinational force in Iraq and bring US causalities down to what they were several months ago (i.e. three or four causalities a week) Kerry is toast.

[CTLawGuy]

81. Nothing Bush can do

will make people think Iraq was "worth it". He can't bring back dead soldiers, he can't untorture people. He can get us out of there, but it won't be a victory. The best he can do is cut his losses.

[sangh0]

87. Since you can't predict the past, I doubt you can predict the future

In other posts in this thread, you make several mistakes about past events related to Kerry and IWR. If you can't predict the past accurately, I see no reason to believe your predictions of the future.

[CTLawGuy]

89. haha

im sorry if I used the non-rationalized version of events regarding IWR... :eyes:

90. don't worry about it too much

:)

some people think that being rational and rationalizing are the same thing. Ever noticed that?

:evilgrin:

[CTLawGuy]

91. yeah

they need to know the distinction

www.merriam-webster.com

Rational - 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason :

Rationalize - 2 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>

[sangh0]

94. You need to know the difference

between "rationalized" and "fantasy"

For example, you claimed that Bush* somehow failed to follow IWR. You didn't rationalize it and you did not provide a rationale for saying so. You just merely asserted it. Then, when presented with proof that your accusation was wrong, you acknowledges the mistake.

So why do you now try to pretend that you rationalized your assertion?

[CTLawGuy]

98. no, I did not

I was responding to Feanorcufinwe who felt that Bush violated the IWR.

Quote Feanorcufinwe: Post #60 on this thread.

"The IWR was not adhered to by Bush, in spite of the lies that are spread repeatedly on DU."



In my opinion Bush did not violate IWR since IWR was so vague as to allow military action against Iraq for any reason.

Please ask questions first, then shoot. Thank you.

[Capn Sunshine]

92. vowel lovers especially

Seem prone to this condition.
A, E I, O U .....Kerry meant something other than the result he specifcally said at the time he wanted.

[sangh0]

95. So "Bush, Do not rush to war"

which is what Kerry said at the time, means "Bush, DO rush to war"

[CTLawGuy]

99. If you give a child a beer

and say "don't drink that beer", should you be surprised if he does drink the beer? Is it not your fault if he drinks the beer?

[Nederland]

101. No

I believe the complaint is that if Kerry really didn't want Bush to rush to war, he should have voted no on the IWR. The IWR gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted to with regard to Iraq.

[sangh0]

103. No, the complaint was that Kerry said one thing, and then did another

but the truth is that Kerry said Bush* should not rush into war.

The IWR gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted to with regard to Iraq.

Wrong again, As CINC, Bush* had the authority to orde the military into combat without a Congressional resolution, as proved by Clinton's doing so in Kosovo.

[CTLawGuy]

106. then why did we need a resolution

in order to have a "credible threat of force" against Saddam?

"Wrong again, As CINC, Bush* had the authority to orde the military into combat without a Congressional resolution, as proved by Clinton's doing so in Kosovo."

[sangh0]

109. Politics

.

[Nederland]

110. So...

You are admitting that Kerry voted to give Bush political cover for attacking Iraq?

[sangh0]

112. No

I'm admitting that the moon is made of green cheese

[Exgeneral]

115. No No

just to differentiate the tiles of your posts.....
Rational as always

[Cheswick2.0]

120. Oh come on, Kerry sold out because he was running for President

He voted for the IWR because he thought it would be used against him politically if he didn't. Everyone knows it including you. Saying it here on DU isn't going to get bush elected. Let's at least be honest.

[zoeyfong]

118. It's called ass-covering. Vote for something, while offering some

"reservations" to the press, so if the thing becomes unpopular you can always say "My support for X was very conditional...." On the other hand, if the thing goes well, you've got your 'yes' vote on the record. I remember at the time of the vote Hillary Clinton being ridiculed because she claimed she was voting *for* the resolution to make war *less* likely. It was transparent then, and it's transparent now.

[Southsideirish]

71. Howard Dean - still generates such passion - 'always will (n/t)

[TexasSissy]

133. Unfortunately for him, he also incites unfavorable passion.

That's why he lost the nomination. To many Democrats and others, he's just an unlikeable guy who speaks before he thinks. In the polls during the Dem. candidacy phase, his unfavorable ratings were consistently the highest among all the candidates.

He had a lot of good ideas, and he has a lot to contribute to the country, but he just didn't have that "it" it takes to win the Presidency. Measured speech, the ability not to alienate your base and others, likeability, etc., etc. So he creates passion in those who follow him, but creates equal passion in those who don't....and that's not a good thing in politics.

[Radical Activist]

121. Dean still looks like a fake

He only became outspoken against the war when it was obvious that would be a winning campaign issue. That's how Dean was on every issue.

[CTLawGuy]

122. it was NEVER obvious that it would be a winning campaign issue

Dean spoke against it because he truly believed it was wrong. It got him labelled as a far left wacko, when he is really a fiscally conservative moderate.

"That's how Dean was on every issue."


Wow, that's a smart conclusion :eyes: I guess the VT civil unions bill in 2000 really had more support than the 30% the polls were showing. I guess the bulletproof vest he was wearing at campaign stops in 2000 because of all the death threats was made of paper-mache :eyes:


It's fine not to like Dean, but at least have a rational and correct reason for it.

[Radical Activist]

126. Sure, he just realized it months later

Dean's comments before the war resolution vote happened are significantly different that later on. His rhetoric and emphasis changed significantly. Kucinich gave major speeches in opposition to the war months before Dean said much about it, so maybe you're confusing the two. I'm sure Dean thought the war was wrong, but I'm also sure it was easier to believe that after he spent months campaigning in Iowa, which has a pacifist tradition.

And really, if Dean was so courageous with the Civil Unions bill why didn't he make any significant efforts to help it pass in the legislature before it got to his desk, and why didn't he support a national civil unions bill when he ran for President? I would respect Dean's supposed courage as Governor on the civil unions issue if he had chosen to show the same amount of courage as a candidate for President. Sadly, he backed down.

It still surprises me how easily liberals were taken in by this guy's rhetoric without care for his moderate record.

[CTLawGuy]

130. ah, you're a Kucinich guy

Every Dean supporter knows he is a moderate. And I guess you will never like him because he is a moderate.

Dean made his "what I want to know!..." speech in December of 2002 where he criticized Democrats for supporting the war. that was pretty early in the game. Dean had said things to the effect that we need to keep Saddam disarmed, by unilateral force if necessary. But he would not use that force unless it was absolutely necessary.

Dean was opposed to enabling Bush to march to war without solid evidence of WMD, and evidence taht the WMD was a threat.


As for not supporting a federal civil unions bill... He has said that he would require states to give equal protection to all couples, gay or straight, but he wasnt going to tell them HOW to do it. Also, marriage is not in the federal domain, but rather it's left to the individual states. That is why the FMA is a constitutional AMENDMENT and not a simple law. Any law would be unconstitutional.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

134. "..pretty early in the game."

Kucinich is the choice of the anti-war cause because his "Prayer For America" was delivered on February 17th 2002. Only 5 months after Sept. 11th. Incidentally it is also what inspired people to DRAFT Kucinich to run for President. I think the problem most anti-war have with Dean is that he was never really anti-war and it's questionable if he was even purely anti-Iraq-war or as you even stated he showed support for UNILATERAL force. Hey I like Dean, he just gets way too much credit for being something I don't believe he is. By the way,he was my top choice before Kucinich joined the race.

Anyway to see what inspires Ku-citizens.

Here is a real player video of the February 17th 2002, "Prayer for America".

http://resources.kucinich.us/video/Prayer56k.ram

Here is the text:

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

Some highlights. I don't think copyright rules apply here since it was a public speech? I am sure Kucinich doesn't mind :) If I need to edit this mods, please let me know.

*******************************

" The following speech was given on February 17, 2002 in Los Angeles at an event sponsored by the Southern California Americans for Democratic Action. It prompted a great many people begin an effort to draft Dennis Kucinich to run for President of the United States. One year later he consented to run."

snip>>>>>>>>>

"How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy. The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration."

snip>>>>>>>>

"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy."

snip>>>>>>>>

"America, America. Let us pray for our country. Let us love our country. Let us defend our country not only from the threats without but from the threats within. Crown thy good, America. Crown thy good with brotherhood, and sisterhood. And crown thy good with compassion and restraint and forbearance and a commitment to peace, to democracy, to economic justice here at home and throughout the world."

*********************************

That may give you an idea of where a lot of Kucinich supporters are coming from. Kucinich was the voice we had all been waiting for during a time of rampant jingoism and the PNAC agenda was being shoved down our throats. We were all asking if anyone in government was going to take a stand. Well that person made his voice heard.

TWL

[Cheswick2.0]

124. nonsense

not true at all.

[Exgeneral]

125. That's just not the case

Not at all. Dean was outspoken about the war because he is sensitive to issues that his people are sensitive to. Remember that this was a "bottoms up" campaign, and whatever he might have said reflected his actual dialogs with his supporters as well as study on the issue.
It was the honest state of things that drove Howard Deans campaign, not what would make him "electable"

Of course ,looking through a window, from outside looking in , you could wonder why a bunch of people are twitching and jerking around and conclude they are nuts because you don't hear the music.

[Radical Activist]

127. Oh....

So he didn't hear a lot of Democratic primary voters voice their strong opposition to the war in Iraq and decide to emphasise that position afterwards, especially in a state with an anti-war tradition like Iowa. He simply heard from his supporters that they were opposed to it and empahsized it because it was a "bottom up" campaign. Well, I guess it isn't pandering if its a bottom up campaign. That makes it totally different! spin spin spin

Dean read the mood of the primary voters perfectly and reflected that attitude in his speeches. That was the single most brilliant part of his campaign, and the most disingeneous.

[CTLawGuy]

128. yes, he did hear our opposition

and he took it up, because he also believed it. Opposing the war when it had 75% approval is a gutsy thing to do. Why do you think no other dem touched the war issue until the war started to drag on? They were afraid the war would be a complete success and that they would find themselves opposed to an extremely popular idea.

The DLC spoke out against Dean for the very reason that he was opposed to the war. They said he was "unelectable" because of it. How is that supposed to be the result of cynical pandering?

Dean took the same risk when he signed the civil unions bill in an election year, with an approval of 30% in vermont. Why else would he have signed it, other than it was the right thing to do? It wasnt going to make him huge friends among swing voters.

[Radical Activist]

129. No other Dem?

Again, the Dean campaign was based on the false assumption (promoted in the corporate media) that he was the only real choice for those opposed to the war. Kucinich and Sharpton opposed it months before Dean did. They showed real couraged. They spoke at war protests that Dean shied away from. How many peace rallies did Dean speak at? Not one.

Opposing the war after Dean saw that most of the Democratic primary voters opposed it was not gutsy. It was smart political pandering.

[CTLawGuy]

132. you are right,

I apologize for leaving out Kucinich. Its most likely the media's fault that his message did not get covered.


I am sorry that Dennis couldnt' find the success that Dean could. Dennis is a good man. I think he should run for Governor or Senate before trying the presidency again.

If you are gov. or sen. then you have such an advantage, because the presidential election is a series of statewide elections. It is easier for you to win multiple statewide elections if you can win ONE first. that is why Congressmen and -women have a hard time competing for president. they lack the organization necessary to win statewide elections, since they only deal in single districts.

[zulchzulu]

131. I like the Good Doctor now...wasn't a big fan earlier

I won't go into details about earlier opinions of him. I do really appreciate his passion and what he's doing NOW.

Most foaming-at-the-mouth Dean fans I knew during the primary season have comforted down and are die-hard Kerry freaks like me.

Movin' on...we have lots of work to do.