The high price of voting in favor of the war...

[marmar]

Ouch! :hurts:

Published on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 by TedRall.com
Pro-War Pols Don't Deserve a Political Future
by Ted Rall

DENVER--The congressmen and senators who lined up to cast their yeas and nays on October 11, 2002 knew that they were casting one of the most, if not the most, important votes of their political careers. Public Law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, the result of the vote to authorize the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, would have incalculable moral, economic and geopolitical implications for the long-term future of the United States. But not every congressman put the interests of his country ahead of his career prospects. With George W. Bush still riding high in the polls less than a year after 9/11, it took courage and foresight--the ability to see a future in which the public would sour on Bush and his wars--to defy him.

As is often the case during times of crisis, when history tests the mettle of men and women, courage and foresight were in short supply. Fewer than a third--156 out of 529--dared to vote no.

Four years later, the Iraq war resolution reads like a classic of embarrassingly brazen propaganda. It says that Iraq posed a "threat to the national security of the United States," something that anyone with access to a map knew couldn't possibly be true. (Iraq's longest-range missiles had a maximum range of 500 miles.) It includes the debunked statements that Iraq had "a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" .

The rest of the article is at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0607-24.htm

[blm]

1. Bush beat YOU, TOO, Ted. That was a political maneuver to take the focus

OFF OF HIM, when he knew he'd violate any resolution that was passed - ANY!

But, by having the media chorus all saying that IWR was a vote for war, as if it had no measures in it to be met first, alot of Democrats turned all their focus and wrath on the Dem lawmakers - many of who had wanted to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq since 1998.

So - Bottom line - Bush is not held accountable for his VIOLATION of the IWR because everyone is focusing for the last four years ONLY ON THE DEMOCRATS who supported a resolution.

People have been spun into believing the IWR took this nation to war - it didn't. Bush was going in with or without it, and ANY resolution was going to be violated.

But BushInc and their media whores have everyone STILL HARPING about the DEmocrats who supported the resolution, because it keeps the Dem party divided and good Dems TARGETED by assholes like Ted Rall.

[BillZBubb]

2. Oh please!

Rall is correct. Anyone who voted for the IWR allowed their judgment (if they had any) to be blinded by ambition. If all Democrats had refused to vote for the IWR and actively opposed any attack on Iraq without PROOF of WMD, our party would be in a lot better position now.

It is the "War Resolution" is it not? A vote for IWR was a de facto vote for the war. Everyone knew it. Anyone with any brains knew the Chimperor was going to attack Iraq, but we didn't need to give him cover. The Democrats who voted for it were enablers. At best they showed extremely poor judgment in a critical hour.

I don't need Bush or the media to tell me who turned their back on us and supported the IWR, I know who they are. Fortunately only a few still seem happy with what they did--they are the DINOs we must deal with.

[blm]

4. Then explain why many of them were working to get weapons inspectors back

into Iraq since 1998? They were preparing for the "career booster" in 2002?

And the point is that YOU ALL STILL ACCEPTED THE SPIN - instead of holding Bush ACCOUNTABLE for being in violation of the IWR, you blame the IWR as if he had no measures to meet before he went to war.

That worked out really well for Bush. No media discussing the guidelines, so when he went, no one discussed how he was VIOLATING the guidelines to do it.

And forget the Democrats, they have been preoccupied for almost 4 years attacking Democrats who supported a resolution.

And newsflash, ALL resolutions have military force as a threat - they also have measures to meet - those measures were SUCCEEDING in preventing war, so Bush had to STOP the process and LIED to start war.

Do you think even Repubs like Lugar and Hagel would have used the IWR to start war? No - they would have followed the guidelines which were already proving military force was NOT NEEDED.

ANY resolution, no matter how it was written, would have been violated by BushInc. The IWR did not take Bush to war - it would have stopped him if he had any intention of implementing it honestly.

Blame the resolution and you let Bush off the hook for being in VIOLATION of its guidelines. After all, it's the resolution that's to blame, according to many of you. How convenient for Bush and the media who now have nothing to "explain" about Bush's failures to adhere to it.

[Catrina]

8. But that's the problem with those who trusted Bush. No one should

have trusted him. It didn't take a genius to know that these people were itching for war. His whole cabinet was filled with war-mongers and former criminals from the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It doesn't matter what was in the resolution. Those who voted against it did the right thing. Obviously they knew this was someone who needed to be reined in. The question is, why didn't the rest of them? I know I was pretty new to politics back then, but I read enough about the Bush family and their friends, to know that these people were warmongers and that everything that could be done to stop them, needed to be done.

Those who voted for the resolution should have understood they were being forced into a corner. He pushed that vote up before the election. It was obvious even to casual observors that it was meant to embarrass Democrats, and they should never have allowed themselves to be manipulated like that.

My respect goes to those who voted against it. I listened to their speeches that night and they made so much sense. Their colleagues should have listened to them, not Bush, imo. I remember crying that night as I watched Democrats cave in to the bullying of the warmongers. It was the beginning of the death sentence of tens of thousands of human beings. That should have swayed them more than anything else.

Unless, of course, that some of those who voted for it, wanted a war with Iraq, such as Diane Feinstein who stood to profit from it.

[SOS]

26. The measures were meaningless

Bush did not violate the IWR.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall...make available.. 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"

The efforts, "supported" by Congress in Section 2 are totally meaningless, since Section 3 allows Bush the sole determination as to whether those "supported" conditions were met or not.
Congress gave Bush 100% authority to determine that the conditions were not met and then start the war.

His letter to Congress was nothing more than a copy and paste of Section 3b.

[blm]

37. Except he LIED To make that determination that we were under continued

threat and he STOPPED The efforts of weapon inspectors and diplomats who were reporting success and progress in their efforts - so Bush STOPPED their efforts and put forth a lie that our national security was under threat.

The IWR said he had to send a letter to congress that he found we were under threat even after the enforcement of the UN res for weapons inspections and diplomacy. The weapons inspectors and diplomats reported NO SUCH THREAT.

So he LIED in that official document and that is an impeachable offense.

The inordinate amount of focus on the Dem support for the resolution and the spin that the IWR = war, helped DISTRACT from the scrutiny of Bush's violations of it.

[Terran1212]

3. The Iraq War Resolution is CONSTITUTIONALLY bad

The Constitution calls for only Congress to declare war. To hand that power to the President is foolish and is just about the same as authorizing war as far as I'm concerned.

And most of the people who voted for the IWR still like the war.

[blm]

5. That's true of every war in modern history -

.

[Terran1212]

48. That should tell you something

[zulchzulu]

6. The IWR allowed for the UN to continue inspections...not give Chimp a pass

If you REALLY do your homework, the IWR did one major thing: it allowed the UN to continue inspections. One thing the IWR did not do: allow Bush to attack Iraq unilaterally and without going back to the UN before the choice to go to war was as a last resort.

This is an old, stale diatribe by Ted Rall, who backed Dean in the primaries. What Ted forgets is that even Dean would have voted for the IWR if he was given the opportunity initially. Same with Wes Clark and others...

Calling those that signed on to the IWR "pro-war" is Rovian nonsense...pickle-headed pedestrian claptrap...

[Dhalgren]

7. Read the IWR. It gave Bush sole discretion for invading Iraq.

And it required nothing of him, short of a report to congress after the fact. It left the decision completely up to Bush no mention of steps he was required to take prior to HIS DECISION to invade. If they wanted it to read differently, they should have either written it better or at least they should have read it before agreeing to it...

[blm]

9. Conveniently skips over the ref to UN res in the IWR putting inspectors

back in and renewing diplomatic efforts - BOTH OF WHICH WERE PROVING SUCCESSFUL, and that military force was NOT NEEDED.

That's pure BS to say that Bush had no requirements to meet - he did - and that is why he had to LIE and declare we WERE under continuing threat. He LIED in an official document, and Democrats would rather attack the IWR and Dem supporters of it than TARGET Bush for VIOLATING its guidelines.

You've all invested so much time in demonizing the IWR, that you will never focus on Bush's violation of it to have his war.

How effing CONVENIENT for BushInc.

[Dhalgren]

10. The IWR is full of "Whereas" statements that echo Bush's lies.

The lies came before the IWR. Show me in the IWR document, itself, where it requires Bush to do anything except make a report after the fact. I have read the thing numerous times and if I have missed it, I will admit it up front and thank you for educating me.

[blm]

11. No resolution is going to say the president must be truthful, it expects

it because presidents are forbidden by law to submit official documents that contain false statements.

The iWR had a specific ref to the UN res which put weapons sinspectors back into Iraq and renewed diplomatic efforts - the president STOPPED their work because it was successfully proving miltary force was not needed. He then submitted a document to congress where he lied to meet the requirement that our national security was under a continued threat from Iraq.

He already had 2 months of current, solid intel from the weapons inspectors and the diplomats working on Saddam's peaceful exit from Iraq, saying the exact opposite.

Thanks to continued focus ONLY on the Dems who supported the resolution, the media and Dem activists have no time and act as if there is no cause to question Bush's violation of that resolution.

So, when Kerry and other Democrats kept saying this was a rush to war, a war of choice, that the weapons inspections and diplomacy were working, let them finish their jobs, the media and many Dems were screaming MORE LOUDLY, "Shut up - you voted for war." "Too little, too late."

.... and all to WHOSE benefit?

[Dhalgren]

12. This in no way removes the onus from Bush. What it says is that

everyone responsible should be held accountable. Any politician who went along with the IWR did so for only one (or two) reasons: 1) they trusted Bush against all of the evidence to the contrary and so showed extremely poor judgment; 2) they were motivated by political concerns and so cannot, themselves, be trusted.

Either they were duped or they were politically calculating - either way, it isn't a strong recommendation for those who supported the IWR. And this in no way removes Bush's guilt or criminality. Why would the fact that all of the Republicans and many Democrats being guilty of crass political maneuvering or doltish gullibility in any way subtract from Bush's war crimes and crimes against humanity or the breaking of his oath of office?

If our Democratic leadership is so dim-witted as to trust Bush in this most serious and seriously flaw endeavor, then we should replace them with men and women who are smarter and have their country's best interests at heart. Any Democrat who sides with Bush (on practically anything) should be replaced...

I still can't find any section of the IWR that reqires Bush to do anything prior to using force - and no mention of "last resort" either...

[blm]

13. Except there were OTHER FACTORS that NONE of you add - many of those

Dems had been actively working to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq since 1998 and have a long record of doing so.... but, noooooo.... it has to be that they were being craven, somehow.....


....and the oft ignored fact that the older senators and congressmen who had been familiar with the Bush1 type dealings also had some belief that Bush2 and Rice would LISTEN to those who had dealt with Iraq in the past, like Colin Powell, Bush1, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, all of who were advising AGAINST military force - as we know now, BushInc was even lying to Colin Powell, they were THAT devious.

It turned OUT that All of the old Iraq crowd from the past were shut out completely, but in Oct 2002, the lawmakers had no reason to believe that would happen.

[MadHound]

14. Excuse me, but millions upon millions of people

Both here in America and abroad, saw the IWR for what it really was, a bill enabling Bush to go to war in Iraq essentially anytime he pleased. Millions of us took to the streests in protest. Millions and millions more contacted our reps, urging, begging, pleading with them to vote no on the IWR. In fact messages to the various reps were running 268-1 against the IWR. If these Senators had simply done their damn job, which is to be the voice for their constituents, then we wouldn't have this mess we're in. But noooo, our so called leaders decided that it was a more pragmatic move to try and save their political hides rather than to fulfill the duties of their job. And since they can't be bothered to fulfill their duties, we should do what every employer does with a slacker employee, fire their happy asses.

And you can stop your whining and moaning about how we're only picking on Dems and giving the 'Pugs a pass. We're not giving anybody a pass, we're holding accoutable all of those who enabled this illegal, immoral war, be they Republican or Democrat. This war, this god awful mistake that was made for political points, has cost tens of thousands of people their lives, their homes, and their country. Those who committed this gross error have got to be held accountable. And giving them a pass simply because they have a D behind their name shouldn't and won't be tolerated.

[blm]

18. Excuse me but millions of millions didn't KNOW he was going with/without

the iWR and that the IWR had guidelines at least that put the inspectors in - had it not, we wouldn't KNOW for certain that the WMDs were no longer there, and Bush could have much more easily planted them once they did invade. We would be LESS INFORMED with no facts to back us up.

And further - everyone seems to forget that Bush HAD the votes for war with NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL, and to further extend his invasion into Iran and Syria.

That resolution you all hate so much and treat as the compelling reason for war, also had Dem negotiators who got Iran and Syria off the table in exchange for their support.

[MadHound]

19. Again, it comes back down to these Dems doing their damn job

Representing the will of their constituents. Their constituents were screaming that they didn't want the IWR passed. They were bright enough to see the IWR really was, a fig leaf for the president and an authorization for him to go to war. But instead of doing their job, these Dems decided to play politics instead, and now tens of thousands of dead because of it.

And the president may or may not have gone to war without the IWR, we'll never know now. But without the IWR, it would have really hurt politically and gee, he just might have been gone in '04. But instead all the neo-con pundits were able to scream "Dems too, Dems too""IWR, IWR""flip-flop, flip-flop" and hear we are two years later with Bush still in office.

Make all the excuses you want, but what it boils down to is that the Dems failed to do their job, and instead of calling for their being fired, your making weak excuses for them. Talk abou enabling:eyes: How in the hell do you expect things to get better if nobody is held accountable?

[blm]

24. I don't uses excuses, I use FACTS - and the fact is that you all helped

take the focus OFF of Bush VIOLATING the IWR to have his war, and you provided no back up to any senator saying, "HEY, Bush is rushing to war and is not letting the weapons inspectors finish their work or allowing the diplomats to progress their efforts to get Saddam to leave Iraq peacefully."

Nope - you all sided with the MEDIA who were all saying what Rove wanted them to say - "You Dems have no right to want scrutiny of Bush because you voted for war - end of story."

And you still do almost four years later - and assholes like Ted Rall who are too confined to their narrow tunnels, lead the charge - COMPLETELY LETTING BUSH OFF THE HOOK while the pounding conrtinues on the LESSER ISSUE of the support for the resolution by Democrats.

Ever hear of the word PROPORTIONATE?

[MadHound]

25. LOL, so it's our fault now,

Talk about blaming the victims, geez:eyes:

Look, in case you haven't been paying attention, millions of people have been screaming their heads off now, holding Bush, along with the 'Pugs and the Dems who sided with him, to the fire for their actions. You can witness people screaming at Bush over the war everyday, not only here on DU, but across the country in forum after forum, protest after protest. In fact Bush has indeed the major focus of this anger. Don't believe me, then come on down to our twice weekly protests here in Columbia and find out for yourself.

And thanks to these Dems who voted for the IWR, the 'Pugs were able to point fingers at us during the election and say "You approved it too", which is one of the reasons why the Kerry campaign was sunk.

As far as proportionate goes, I think that if you would count up the posts here, count up the protests across the country, count up the LTTEs, and look at public opinion, I think you would find that the blame is indeed being laid proportionately.

But instead, you want no accountability from our Democratic leaders, you simply want them to be held blameless for enabling tens of thousands of lives to be lost, our economy wrecked, and our standing in the world sunk, all because of the mantra "Dems uber alles" Sorry, but I happen to believe in that quaint notion of people being held responsible for their actions. Apparently a lot of other people do also.

But no, apparently by wishing for accountability in our leaders we're all falling for some big Rovian plot:eyes: I suppose it was Rove who forced those Dems to vote for the IWR too, hmmm. Geez, and people say I'm conspiracy theorist:crazy:

[blm]

28. In a way it is - anytime corp media spin from BushInc is echoed by the

left, it BECOMES our fault, too.

Our Democrats have already had a DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF ACCOUNTABILITY and focus - Why the hell do you think this thread and others like it are still going on almost 4 years later while FEW in the media or here start threads holding Bush accountable for being in VIOLATION of the IWR? Because there is a complete lack of proprtion in assessing culpability.

And many of you want to take even more DRASTIC STEPS to make it hiurt the Dem party even more.

[MadHound]

31. *GASP* You're onto our dastardly plot. You must not live,

For the world must not know that we want to kick those damn Dem bastards out during the *GASP* primaries!:eyes:

Wow dude, you are leaving reality at light speed if you can't see what protestors, and those on this board are posting about, day in, day out, calling for Bush's impeachment,prosecution and in some cases his head(figurtively speaking of course;))

No, instead you focus solely on those who are wanting to hold those Dems responsible for their actions, which is, if you haven't studied your civics recently, the way a good represenative democracy works. It is, after all, why we have primaries.

Well, I do admit that people get worked up a bit about this, but only because it is more painful to get the shiv in your back from somebody who is supposed to be on your side, rather than from the person you already know is completely evil.

But I think if you would take an honest look at not just DU, but at protests, and other means of expression, I'm certain you would see that the lion's share of blame for this mess we're in is being laid at the feet of the most deserving, Bushco.

But yes, we do believe that people should be accountable for their actions, which is why we criticize our own. And that accountability is indeed expressed through the primaries. Gee, maybe if more people had decided to hold our so called leaders accountable years ago, the Democratic party wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. But I suppose you think that's some sort of heresy too:eyes:

[blm]

35. Don't twist what I'm saying. I understand a PROPORTIONATE amount of focus

on the IWR and the speculation of the reasons for supporting it - but FOUR YEARS LATER? And after we know that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT SCRUTINY of Bush being in VIOLATION of the IWR for the last three years?

Stick to what I'm saying and stop turning it into something else. Can you argue MY POINTS as written? Do I ever say DON'T question Dems? No - I say it's been TOO MUCH and TOO EXTREME while at the same time it dustracted from the GREATER ISSUE of Bush being in VIOLATION of the IWR - a document that would have prevented war with any other president implementing it, including Bush1.

[MadHound]

39. Oh please friend, I've been addressing your points all along

Sorry if it hurts when I hand you facts, and your ass, back to you.

As far as this coming up four years later, well gee, have you ever considered this to be an election year? You know, that time when primaries are held, and our leaders are supposed to be held accountable for their actions during the primaries. Hmm, could that have something to do with it?

No, you don't say that you don't ever question Dems, but you are saying, contrary to evidence both on this board and in the real world, that it is TOO MUCH and TOO EXTREME. Pardon me, but I have to call bullshit on that one. C'mon, you are making the claim, I challenge you to provide the proof to back it up with. Let's see a statistical study on this.

And while the IWR may have prevented war with any other president, millions of people across the country saw exactly how Bush would use the IWR as a means to go to war. They weren't fooled one bit, and were contacting their reps in order to voice their opinion. And their opinion, in overwhelming numbers was against the IWR. Now then, if millions of people were not fooled by this little ploy, are you saying that our so called leaders were fooled? If that is the case, then they're too stupid to be re-elected. But sadly, the more likely scenario is that these Dems put their own political future ahead of their constituents wishes, and if that is the case they need to be held accountable for that also.

What is so damn wrong about wanting to hold them accountable via the primary vote? And why should it be verbotten to talk about whether or not our so called leaders have done the right thing? And finally, if you don't like these sorts of threads, why in the hell are you in here posting on them?

[blm]

41. That's not what Ted Rall is saying.

And the day anyone hands me my ass, I highly doubt it will happen here. Comprehension and logic are not exactly in surplus, nor is historic context.

And hey - let's just get rid of all those who supported IWR - let's get rid of Waxman and Kerry - they do nothing for this nation - not as much as Rall does.

And why stop at the IWR? Bush would have invaded with the Biden-Lugar version, too, so all those who supported that should be tossed out, too.

And hey - let's get rid of everyone who supported Roberts or Alito, too - because those judges will have a lasting effect on this country for the worse, just as much as the Iraq war - a war that was going to happen with or without an IWR.

[MadHound]

44. I don't give a damn what Rall is saying,

This is a discussion between you and I, geez, talk about going off topic:eyes:

And yes, comprehension and historic context is lacking, I would suggest that you find some of both:shrug:

[Bandit]

23. Why did they sign a no-bid contract in secret with Halliburton

to take charge of Iraqs oil supplies weeks before the IWR was ratified? :shrug: That Bush* was going to attack Iraq was no surprise to most people.

[janx]

43. People knew that * was hell bent to wage war on Iraq.

I and millions of others saw that. But the country was in a flag-waving frenzy after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. Those who gave the Chimp the power to do what he was hell bent on doing did so for political purposes.

[blm]

46. Despite proof that they worked to get inspectors back into Iraq since 1998

and despite the fact that all the old guard Republicans who SHOULD have been relied upon, ended up being FROZEN OUT, unbeknownst to any of us who actually followed Iraq policies since the 80s.

It's so easy to claim it's just politics when you really don't know the people you are accusing very well and have no grasp on their actual history and their history of involvement with the issue of Iraq.

[Dhalgren]

15. So those who voted for the IWR knew that it gave Bush the

green light to invade Iraq, but they were hoping that someone could talk him out of it? I'm sorry, but that's kind of bizarre...

[blm]

17. No - they put weapons inspectors back in and renewed diplomacy. And ALL

resolutions of force leave the president to make the determination because they are SUPPOSED to be used as hard bargaining tools FIRST.

You obviously want to ignore that Bush's VIOLATION of the IWR has escaped all scrutiny from the press and the Democrats who focus all their blame on the Democratic supporters of the IWR - you want to acknowledge PROPORTION for a change?

[Dhalgren]

20. How did Bush "violate" the IWR? What sections of the IWR

did Bush violate? Seriously. I am not spinning a thing here. I have certain political beliefs that I try to base on reality. If I have missed some fact or some historical incident that would cause me to reconsider my position, then I will change my position. I am not grinding axes. Show me, please, and I will acknowledge my error and change my opinion.

[blm]

22. The IWR's ref to the UN res was to get inspectors in and renew diplomacy.

Bush was to determine war was needed AFTER - and as you do recall, the weapons inspectors DID go back in and were reporting for over two months that there were no signs of WMDS - they were SUCCEEDING in passing on intel to PREVENT war. And diplomats from our allies WERE reporting PROGRESS in getting Saddam to leave peacefully. Neither of those steps would have been taken without the IWR.

Did people think those steps just happened in a vacuum and that Bush was just being a nice guy about it? They didn't happen in a vacuum, they were steps provided in the IWR in its ref to the 1991 UN res measures.

Both steps were proving war was unnecessary, so Bush had to STOP them and make his determination to congress that war was necessary because of a CONTINUED THREAT to our national security as per the IWR. In other words, he had to LIE in an official document sent to congress and that is an impeachable offense.

Doeas anyone think ANY resolution was going to stop Bush? The highly touted Biden-Lugar version was a better version, but everyone knows by now that Bush STILL would have gone in with that version, too.

[SOS]

38. The preamble is not the law

The lengthy "whereas" section is not the law. The law starts with "Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives..."

The resolution is Sections 1-4, not the background information.

The actual resolution does NOT call for any UN inspectors. Do you have a link where Bush is required by US law to continue UN inspections?

Sec 2 says that Congress supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

So what? Bush didn't do it because he wasn't required to. The Congress "supported" his non-existent efforts to enforce UN resolutions. Utterly meaningless.

And in Sec. 3 they give Bush 100% authority to determine whether "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"

Surprise! Bush "determined", all by himself, that peaceful means were insufficient. That's why Senator Byrd called the IWR a blank check. Byrd was right.

[blm]

42. So, Bush WANTED inspectors in and diplomacy to work and did so because

he's just a decent guy?

Hah. Thos inspectors went in and diplomacy was renewed DESPITE what Bush originally wanted.

And have fun with the continued disproprtionate attacking of Democrats who supported a resolution while you maintain that Bush had no guidelines in that IWR and in fact, he implemented it honestly . Yep - Bush had no choice - the evil Democratic senators, some of them KNOWN for their peace efforts, actually MADE Bush attack Iraq.

[SOS]

45. So no link to US law requiring Bush to persue inspections?

Iraq invited Hans Blix to Iraq to discuss disarmament in August 2002, two months before the IWR was passed.

Powell presented a load of BS to the UN in February 2003, but those tales of mobile weapons labs and WMDs were the false foundation upon which Bush made his determination. Bush's determination was indeed based on total falsehoods. The IWR authorised him to start the war based solely on his determination, regardless of their veracity.

Byrd was right. The 23 Senators who voted against the IWR were the ones making the "peace efforts", not those who gave Bush a blank check to attack Iraq. Bush sure did have a choice, granted him by the Congress.

[Bandit]

21. Bush* says it gives him power to do a lot more than just Iraq

He can now completely ignore the US Constitution and attack Iran or any other country at will.

[blm]

29. well, let him say that to the senators who negotiated Iran and Syria off

the table then - I'd like to hear him try to get away with that lie. I doubt Biden, Gephardt, Kerry, Murtha or even Lieberman would stay silent on that.

But, I don't think Bush would even try tosay the IWR gave him that power - maybe you mean the post 9-11 res to attack Afghanistan?

[Donna Zen]

16. I'm going to have to disagree:

22 Senate Dems (and many Dems in the house) voted against the IWR because they knew that bush wanted the IRW to give him a trigger to go to war. At the time a group called the "Iraq Reconstruction Group" was meeting in DC to write a plan for reconstruction of Iraq. Everyone knew bush didn't want to go to the UN, he wanted to go to war.

General Clark has told his story about visiting the Pentagon a few days after 911, and being told that we were going to war with Iraq. That is why Clark counciled to committees and especially behind closed doors to deny bush the opportunity. That is also why Clark, who was in Chicago at the time, was on the phone with Dashle off and on during the evening, when the call came in that Gephardt had caved. Dashle and Clark and I'm sure others understood the purpose of getting a carefully crafted UN resolution.

Clark, who advised people not to vote for this resolution, and Dean, who came out early against what was going on, deserve more from liberals for their stances B E F O R E it became popular. They were there for us when we needed them, shouldn't we give them credit for that?

I knew what bush was up to, and I live in the middle of the great northern woods. They all knew. Some stood up for what was right; some agreed with bush; and some put themselves ahead of the good of the country.

[blm]

27. And some were acting CONSISTENTLY with their beliefs that putting

weapons inspectors back in and renewing diplomacy were important and could very well PREVENT WAR.

And you cannot forget that the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR was preferred by Clark, Kerry AND Dean, and yet that, too, would have been violated as it was never substantively different than the iWR that passed. And then what would everyone be saying during 2003 thru to today? That Clark and Dean and Kerry are ALL warmongers?

The DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF FOCUS on the IWR and the Dem lawmakers who supported the resolution as if it was the CAUSE of the Iraq war is what is irrational - and it also completely took the focus off the FACT that Bush was violating the IWR's guidelines in order to have his war.

Would you all REALLY prefer the IWR didn't exist and Bush went into Iraq HIS way with NO weapons inspections, NO diplomatic efforts, amd with Iran and Syria next for invasion after Baghdad fell?

Think PROPRTION. Think of the necessary scrutiny the media and Democrats COLLECTIVELY allowed Bush to escape by focusing ONLY ON THE LIE that IWR = war. No scrutiny for his VIOLATION of the IWR to force his war. NONE.

[tomp]

30. could it possibly be that pro-iwr dems were naive AND...

...that bush violated the terms of iwr?

[blm]

33. Naive to the extent they expected that Bush1, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft

and Colin Powell would have more say in the final determination than they apparently did. Who knew they had NO INFLUENCE, whatsoever? I sure didn't know they were completely frozen out of the process, and to the extent that they LIED to Powell. Hell, we thought Powell was lying WITH them, now we find out he was lied to, as well.

We can all look back now and say we knew all this then, but I can't help but know that would be false. Many people here never even knew about Iraqgate, so how can they claim to have had all the info they needed?

The weapons inspectors got back in - IWR made it so. Diplomacy was working - IWR made it so. Bush had to send a letter to congress with his determination after the weopons inspections and diplomacy - IWR made it so. Bush ALONE lied in his official document to congress that war was necessary to stop a continuing threat to our national security - HE LIED.

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Of all the Dems who are culpable, I blame Richard Gephardt

the most. His Rose Garden Concordat sought to take Iraq off the table of the 2002 mid-terms by agreeing that Dems would support the IWR.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. The pickle heads are the opportunistic pols who voted for Bush's war.

"It allowed the UN to continue inspections"

To what purpose?

"One thing the IWR did not do: allow Bush to attack Iraq unilaterally and without going back to the UN before the choice to go to war was as a last resort."

Well, that's good. It certainly prevented all those GI's from shooting up Iraq. Didn't it?

[JNelson6563]

40. Sadly there was an amendment

offered by Carl Levin that would have force Bush to come back and check with Congress before launching. It was voted down. The sickening part is how many Dems voted against this safeguard.

Julie

[coalition_unwilling]

50. The thing that never ceases to amaze me is America's

ahistorical consciousness. The IWR was like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, passed in August '63. Each ceded enormous power to the Executive Branch without insisting on any accountability as a quid pro quo.

I just hope we get out of Iraq before 58,000+ Americans have lost their lives and before 2-3 million Iraqis have lost their lives. Tom Hayden said the anti-war movement needs to prepare itself for a long, drawn-out struggle. He said this two years ago and I didn't believe it myself at the time. But the course of this war since then has led me to believe that Tom might be correct on this matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. But, the poor politicians were too stupid to know it was a vote for war.

Great campaign slogan. "Duh, I was deceived by that genius Bush".

[janx]

36. Exactly. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

47. The IWR

was a blank check given to Bush by congress to go to war with Iraq....

It's really just that simple.

Note: The IWR that passed was penned and sponsored by Joe Lieberman; which is why his ass needs to go.

This was the John Edwards co-sponsored Lieberman Resolution, which is why I don't care how many times Edwards says he was sorry as of October 2005.

Those who voted for that war thought it would end "well".
Well, it ain't even close to being "over" and "well" ain't even close to how its going.