We cannot have a nominee that supported the War on Iraq.

[Zynx]

As the death toll passes 500 and there has been a massive car bomb in Baghdad, it has become clear that Iraq will continue to be a major if not the major issue in the election this year. Because of this, position on this issue is critical. If we nominate someone who supported the war, we basically concede that it was the right thing to do and that it has made this country safer. If we concede that argument, I can not see how we avoid losing the election. This is why I am a Dean/Clark guy(in that order). In my opinion, we can not concede this argument to Bush. Do you agree with my assesment or not and why?

[sandnsea]

1. Not Lieberman? Agree.

Nobody else remotely supported this war. Americans will understand the difference between the need for a unified voice to force inspections and full support of a unilateral invasion based on lies.

[wtmusic]

5. Nobody else remotely supported the war? Ha!

Your candidate voted for the Iraqi War Resolution, and to this day will not come out and say he is 'against the war in Iraq'.

Height of hypocrisy.

[Tinoire]

22. There are only 3 candidate who pass the stench test on this war

Kucinich and Dean (by the grace of not having had to vote). Sharpton, like Kucinich, passes with flying colors but Sharpton doesn't strike me as taking his run very seriously.

Vote Kerry if you want. There's a lot I admire about Kerry and you know I won't cut Dean any slack for not having had to vote but Kerry knew what he was doing.

If we, from our positions knew what the deal was, how could Kerry not know? Kerry knew but he didn't have Kucinich's courage to say BS.

Check this out:

REP. KUCINICH: Dr. Hamza, I have a map of the region here. It's Iraq, and it's up on the screen. Can you tell this committee where Iraq's nuclear sites currently are located?

MR. HAMZA: Actually, that's -- Congressman, that's not the point right now. The point is --

REP. KUCINICH: So you cannot tell where the sites are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody can actually.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay.

MR. HAMZA: Because the sites are now mostly underground, according al-Haideri, who defected recently and built some of those sites. The sites --

REP. KUCINICH: You say they're underground. Do you know where they are underground?

MR. HAMZA: They are all over the country. They are within civilian infrastructure and government infrastructure.

REP. KUCINICH: So you're saying there are nuclear sites all over the country?

MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: Underground?

MR. HAMZA: Underground.

REP. KUCINICH: But no one knows where they are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody knows. Some are above ground, some underground, some in civilian infrastructure. Nobody -- that's why inspection is problematic right now.

REP. KUCINICH: You know, I'm certainly in agreement with members of this committee who favor inspections. But I'm just trying to establish -- the witness says that there are nuclear sites, they're underground and no one knows where they are. So --

MR. HAMZA: Not necessarily underground. I said some may be underground, some above ground.

REP. KUCINICH: Do you know where the ones above ground are? Can you tell us?

MR. HAMZA: They are no longer where they were. Nobody knows outside Iraq right now exactly where the sites are located. They are spread, fragmented and hidden.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, when --

MR. HAMZA: That would be an easy job if somebody knows and can tell you right away and you just go there.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, linguistic construction is a marvelous science and when we say that there are sites above ground, that is a flat declarative sentence and it implies that we know where the sites are.

MR. HAMZA: No, I said they could be. I said nobody knows. They could be above ground, they could be underground. A recent defector told us he built 20 underground, but that doesn't mean that these sites are all there is. So nobody knows.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay. They could be underground, they could be above ground, nobody knows?

MR. HAMZA: Correct.

REP. KUCINICH: They could exist, they may not exist. Nobody knows and that's why we're talking about inspections. Now, what's the -- because as a member of Congress my concern is that we have proof. Proof is proof. I think the Canadian prime minister said that in a couple of different languages. And so I'm interested if the witness has any proof as to where they are underground, or where they are above ground; not that there may be weapons above ground or underground.
Now, can you tell us, Dr. Hamza, what's the current status of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program? And in your answer, not only information about fissile material everyone speaks of, but also its tamper materials, electrical materials, explosive materials, arming systems and the equipment to process these into a weapon.

MR. HAMZA: What you have in the nuclear weapon program, since already I said there is not a single defector that came out of Iraq from the core of the program. That goes for all weapons of mass destruction, since 1995. So what you have now is what you had before the Gulf War: circumstantial evidence. Purchase of equipment, some second or third tier defectors who tell us some -- like al-Haideri, the civil engineer. Lots of indicators, including equipment purchases, intercepted purchases, activity of certain groups. So what we have is what you have always in a nuclear weapon. The Indian test in 1974 -- there were no proof and everybody was talking about circumstantial evidence.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, let me ask you this. What kind of a weapon is Iraq trying to build: a Hiroshima bomb, you know, a gun-type uranium device? Or a Nagasaki bomb, or a plutonium implosion device, a thermonuclear bomb, a radiological bomb, or all of the above?

MR. HAMZA: It's both nuclear and radiological. We already tested. That's been explained by the inspectors who already were there. Iraq tested the radiological bomb in 1988, but tested it in the desert, not in a building or an environment where --

REP. KUCINICH: What year was that, sir?

MR. HAMZA: 1988. And that was --

REP. KUCINICH: And does it have that same facility now? Does it have that same --

MR. HAMZA: No, no. It was one test -- one major test and one small test, and the tests were non-conclusive. I'm not saying it was an effective weapon at the time. It was tested in the desert, it was tested as a weapon of war and it proved to be not as effective as it should be. But as a weapon of terror, it's another story. Now, as for nuclear weapons, Iraq -- inspectors found that out also. They have documents and everything was revealed, you don't just have to take just my word for it. Iraq was working, and is working I believe, on making an implosion device of the Hiroshima type or size. And --
REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: It was when I was there and it continued, I believe.

REP. KUCINICH: Did you work on that?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. I worked on the design.

REP. KUCINICH: And when were you there?
MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: When?

MR. HAMZA: I was till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: And you were working on that at 1994, and when is the last --

MR. HAMZA: No, 90 --

REP. KUCINICH: When is the last time you were working on that?

MR. HAMZA: I worked on it last time before the Gulf War. But I believe, according to the people I also saw, work continued till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: Was this a facility that inspectors later on saw?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. It is in El Ethir (ph) facility. Inspectors were there, they destroyed the facility and destroyed some of the equipment. They had what is called then -- was declared to be a smoking gun, which was a design -- a workable design for a nuclear weapon. And so the knowledge base is there. The research done is more or less complete. What is needed is just the fissile material.

REP. KUCINICH: To your knowledge, were there ever any United States companies that provided Iraq with materials or with equipment that was used in any nuclear weapons?

MR. HAMZA: There were attempts. No, not major pieces of equipment.

REP. KUCINICH: Anything -- for example?

MR. HAMZA: I don't know of any that the U.S. itself -- but the Germans did supply us with some of the equipment we used to test and develop the nuclear weapon.

REP. KUCINICH: What was provided?

MR. HAMZA: By the U.S. government -- by the U.S. sources?

REP. KUCINICH: By the German government, you were saying.

MR. HAMZA: By German and other sources, we had Japanese sources, we had fast cameras that --

REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: That was in '89/90.

REP. KUCINICH: That was a time that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be presenting some documents to this committee that will show that according to information provided through --

MR. HAMZA: I was not here. I don't know.

REP. KUCINICH: -- the State Department that there was United States companies involved in sending over certain materials to Iraq to assist them in the development of this program. Now we know they were destroyed. And I would take it, based on your testimony, that you're willing to agree that even the programs that you worked on were destroyed. Nevertheless, I think it's valuable to have you here to talk about what it was like before they were destroyed.
The only other thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to -- just for the purposes -- when we began this, I have some of Mr. Hamza's statements that are verbatim transcripts of CNN on October 22, 2001, that establish his position on some of these issues that have come up here. I want to tell Mr. Hamza I'm glad you came before this committee. But at the same time, I think it's very important that none of your experience -- which is valid, it's your experience -- be interpreted by the media today as being proof of the current existence in Iraq of useable weapons of mass destruction, of the ability to deliver those weapons. You know, that's my concern.
I'm not going to discount your proof when you worked for Iraq's weapons program. I'm sure that what you know about that program is marvelous. But I'm equally sure, based on the intelligence that I've heard from my country's intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, that Iraq does not currently have useable weapons of mass destruction. And that's what I have to go on. So I appreciate your --

MR. HAMZA: You mean nuclear or otherwise?

REP. KUCINICH: I'm -- Dr. Hamza, please. I'm saying that I'm taking my position based on information I received from our Central Intelligence Agency. So thank you for being here, and I'm going to ask the chair if he'd be so kind as to include in the record these statements from CNN, as well as an article where -- we always have to be cautious in these hearings about information that's brought forward in a climate which is potentially inflammatory, because a few years ago Congress was presented with information about the Iraqi government being involved in troops storming hospitals, stealing incubators and leaving babies to die on the floor. It turned out that incident, which was brought to inflame the American public, was not true.
I'd like to submit that into the record too. These hearings are always very interesting. I want to thank the chair.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm

Edited to add Sharpton.

[JI7]

25. i thought you were going to say sharpton

i thought you were going to say kucinich and sharpton.

[Tinoire]

32. Sharpton definitely

And Sharpton could be my second choice but unfortunately not even Sharpton is taking his run very seriously. Have you checked out his web page? Very sparse... As sparse as Braun's.

But yes, by all means Sharpton also.

Thanks- edited my post to reflect Sharpton!

[IndianaGreen]

34. Sharpton was an FBI informant

and there are some issues involving him for which he has never taken responsibility, as Patrick Martin of the Socialist Equality Party wrote in a letter published in WSWS:

Al Sharpton is a different kettle of fish. He represents, not so much a political or ideological trend, as a definite social type: the cynical con man or hustler. A former child preacher and FBI narcotics informer, Sharpton’s political and moral corruption were displayed most grotesquely in the Tawana Brawley affair. He first came to national notice championing the transparently false claims of a disturbed black teenager, who said she had been raped by a gang of white racists including a local prosecutor. Sharpton, Brawley’s “adviser,” and her two attorneys, Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason, were ultimately found guilty of 10 counts of defamation in 1998.

This proved only a minor setback in Sharpton’s emergence as one of the most prominent self-proclaimed spokesmen for the black community. He ran for US Senate and for mayor of New York City, and Democratic candidates in New York, including Hillary Clinton in 2000, courted his support. Among the Democratic presidential candidates, Sharpton is the cleverest speaker, and the most streetwise, one of the few who knows how to connect with a working class audience.

But his program is nothing more than self-advancement. He aims to be recognized as a power broker, promising to deliver some portion of the black vote in return for political perks. He represents not the continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, but its cooptation and degeneration: the corruption of a middle class layer that has abandoned any struggle for democratic rights, in favor of appointments, contracts, in a word, cash.

A knack for left-sounding demagogy does not make a candidate either praiseworthy or progressive. On the contrary, we fully subscribe to the opinion voiced by Lenin long ago, that a demagogue, precisely because of his ability to persuade and mislead, is “the worst enemy of the working class.” What the American working class needs are not clever wisecracks or rhythmic cadences, but relentless analysis and criticism of the existing order and a political program based on overturning the profit system and replacing it with a society based on genuine social equality.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/corr-o13.shtml

[Tinoire]

36. If Sharpton were a serious candidate, I would be digging into him

Very interesting IG. The things one learns from you! Quite a lot of information in there to start researching!

[IndianaGreen]

45. Please understand that Marxists have a different view of the world

For example:

New York lawsuit winds down
Sharpton, lawyers guilty of defamation in Brawley case
By David Walsh
25 July 1998

Those who argue that the truth or falsehood of Brawley's claims is irrelevant, considering the legacy of slavery and oppression of blacks in the US, play a particularly pernicious role. Lying has never advanced any progressive social cause.

There is a connection between the lying, defamatory character of the Brawley campaign and the role of racialism. Those, like Maddox, Mason and Sharpton, who preach racial animosity and strive for privileges for their particular color or nationality must lie in their presentation of social life. Society is not a collection of warring ethnic tribes; it is fundamentally divided along class lines, between the elite handful who control economic life and the vast majority of working people. Racialists make things up because their conceptions do not correspond to reality.

Brawley elicited sympathy not only from among nationalists at the time of her alleged attack, but no doubt as well from among black people and others outraged over the nature of the crime. If there is something to be learned here, it is the real danger of reacting to such a situation without weighing the facts and making a reasoned analysis. Such an analysis implies having a perspective on society and an understanding of its essential driving forces. Figures like Mason, Maddox and Sharpton, and their counterparts of every color and background, are dangerous individuals. They play on confusion, ignorance and prejudice to advance their own reactionary political aims. The lesson is: beware of demagogues!

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/braw-j25.shtml

[tinanator]

87. Tawana Brawley couldnt have been telling the truth

If things like that actually could happen, next thing you know, there would be broomstick rapes of haitians in police precinct headquarters, innocent black men being riddled with bullets as they sat in doorways, fat drug abusing weak hearted men beaten and tasered to death as they struggled like unstoppable raging bulls against numbers of seriously endangered officers, while decent white liberals decried his criminality ... wait a minute... uh...

never mind.

[beaconess]

91. Stop race baiting*

* The foregoing accusation/adominition applies only if you're black. If you are not black, carry on, since it's a good thing for white people to talk tough about race.

[sandnsea]

30. There's one, Kucinich

I've read enough of what Howard Dean actually said back in 2002 to know that he very likely would have voted for the resolution. I've read Joe Trippi's statements that they decided to run him as the "anti-war outsider maverick" in Feb 2003 because the centrist field was "full".

Dennis is honest and has been completely against war as a solution to Saddam and WMD from the start. Dean is a fraud.

Kerry and Clark had incredibly similar positions and plans to deal with Iraq as is seen in Clark's testimony to Congress. Clark has been quoted as supporting the IWR and not supporting it. His plan on how to deal with Iraq is more important to me than supporting or not supporting a vote. He did not support the kind of war or diplomacy that Bush chose, he certainly didn't support lies in order to go to war.

At this point, the questions are. Who can get elected. Who will take us where we want to go. Who can get us there fastest.

Answer. John Kerry. Proven Democrat. Simple to me.

[Tinoire]

35. I have no problems with your reasoning Sandnsea

I am trying to make my peace with Dean in case he wins because the movement behind Dean is a populist movement and I have a great admiration for that.

Because I can make my peace with Dean, I am able to conmfortably vote for Kerry precisely because I feel it would be hypocritical to slam him while letting Dean pass and because Kerry is more domestically liberal.

Sharpton, I can vote for but he needs to do a little work putting things in writing for me.

The others? It's not looking like Christmas. Not even for Edwards, the DLC's last hope.

[sandnsea]

38. I'll make peace if I have to

Right now I don't. I still think that Bush would be in a whole lot more trouble if everything that had come out in the last year had been leveled straight at him instead of used as tools of self-promotion by Dean. I find it absolutely disgusting. I also find it disgusting that whenever Kerry gets the slightest positive notice, the war and dead soldiers are quickly reported and laid at Kerry's feet. That is disgusting too. It will take me a very long time to make peace with Howard Dean. Actually I never will. I'll only campaign about Supreme Court appointments because they're too important not to get out there and fight for.

But everybody needs to do what they need to do, I understand that.

[Tinoire]

49. It took me a while to get here

As long as people don't spin and know what they're voting for I'm happy. Peace

[bearfartinthewoods]

62. it's beyond that

look at this http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

we cannot have a candidate that did not support the war. i repect people who disagreed with the decision but the people who we need to win in the general election have spoken over and oever and over.

anytime the question is asked "was going to war the right thing" you get a 30 point spread in favor.

that opinion is not going to change. we can blast bush with his handling but this nation has decided it was the right thing to do.

[sandnsea]

68. Well, I understand that

But we need someone who tells the truth and has been consistent first and foremost. I wouldn't want Joe Lieberman because he was wildly for the war. I'm leaning towards not wanting Wes Clark because he gave testimony to Congress about Saddam being a serious threat that had to be handled sooner or later and now acts baffled that anybody thought Saddam had weapons. I don't want somebody who is going to let Bush off the hook just because Americans think going to war was the right thing. It wasn't, particularly not the way Bush did it. I want someone who supported holding Saddam accountable in a smart and diplomatic way. Obviously, to me that's Kerry. Edwards could fill that spot too. I don't see how anybody else can.

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. i agree with your choices. kerry is my second choice

i'm with edwards because of his southern connection, though.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Agree completely.

There simply was no valid reason for the invasion of Iraq and now even a former member of the Fraudministration has admitted that the plan to invade Iraq was on the table on January 20, 2001 as the Bush Criminal Empire assumed their stolen office. Not ONE Democrat should have ever voted to authorize this war without first seeing real evidence.

[wtmusic]

3. yes I agree

The No. 1 issue. Though some are trying to sweep it under the run, Iraq will keep it fresh in our minds.

[mot78]

4. I agree

Nominated someone who supported IWR will not help unite us come November. The only one of the pro-IWR candidates who would have a chance in not being hamred by the issue is Edwards.

[NV1962]

6. I believe in redemption

Whether for former convicts or former convictions.

So, I'm afraid I disagree - because of the chosen wording: "We cannot have a nominee that supported the War on Iraq"

Make that present tense, and you'll find more agreement: "We cannot have a nominee that supports the War on Iraq"

[wtmusic]

12. I believe in redemption too--for John Kerry

If John Kerry were to come out and say, 'I voted for the Iraq War Resolution and, yes, it was a big mistake' I would gain untold respect for the man (heck, I might even vote for him).

But this lack of humility is unbefitting a future president.

[Tinoire]

37. I am afraid that I want to entrust my country to a man

who won't need to rely on verb tenses to look good.

I demand a little foresight. 95% of DU saw this coming over 1.5 years ago. Why would we want a candidate who didn't? What kind of a leader is that to represent us?

Redemption yes but not at the helm of the country. I'm afraid one needs to spend a little time repenting (and not on the campaign trail).

I posted my information on Clark elsewhere in this thread. There is no redemption from that- not to the Presidency.

There is none for Lieberman who is totally unrepentant but at least has the moral courage of his conviction.

[seventhson]

7. Dean needs to rethink his support

for continued American presence there.

We are NOT helping ANYTHING there. Things are WORSE IMHO than under Saddam

[nomaco-10]

15. When you see the pictures of the devastation....

done to the infrstructure, you know that we must stay there in some capacity to rebuild their city. How can we just hand it over to the UN and say, you fix it, you clean up the mess we made?
I've been watching footage of the car bombing for almost two hours thinking what a waste of so many lives, so many dead, so many more that will die.
As soon as we leave, there will be a civil war and Iraq will become a theocracy anyway. So, maybe you're right, why stay there one more day.

[wtmusic]

Dean does not support continued American presence

He supports us staying there only as long as necessary.

To leave the country in July will plunge it into chaos and result in tens of thousands of deaths. Dean supports developing incentives to create a true international coalition with broad-based support from the UN.

[Tinoire]

40. The UN has been willing to go in for a long time

but not under US rule. Every candidate up there understands that.

Once the UN moves in, the reign of US corporations over there is over and Dean is still too supportive of corporations. We need to get out now and turn the reigns over to the UN. They are the only ones who have enough credibility to possibly do this correctly.

US credibility is shot and this throughout the world.

We have raped Iraq. The victim is asking the rapist to leave the room, to not touch her, to not offer any excuses or false apologies- just to get the hell out of the room.

We have waged a 13 year war against Iraq- they could care less about Republican vs Democrat. They remember Clinton & Albright all too well.

[wtmusic]

88. The US is a big part of the UN

and should be a part of fixing what is broken.

What shouldn't be permissible is the US dictating the terms of the reconstruction or of the new government.

[Tinoire]

39. Thank you Seventhson

I think Dean has been or is at least echoing the position of his supporters because he's beginning to say US out/UN in (barely audible but beginning to). I am sure people like you will pump up the volume and demand that he do. As I said earlier, I have great faith in Dean supporters.

[JI7]

8. Kucinich ?

.

[AP]

9. We're not going to win with a candidate who thinks IWR vote was more...

...important than, oh, say, middle class American opportunity, and, oh, say, the notion that people who work for a living should bear a huge tax burden.

[nomaco-10]

10. Glad to know others feel the same way....

No candidate that supported this carnage will get my vote. I will be staying home and sending the democratic party a message. I can assure you, I will not be the only one.

[Tinoire]

14. The DLC is willing to risk that, unfortunately. I echo you though

I have a little list and right now there aren't that many names on it.

I expect some representation for my vote and war does not represent me- certainly not this war. Certain things, you just can't budge on.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Al From has said that support for the war is imperative

from all Democratic candidates. From is a chickenhawk!

[Tinoire]

24. Al From

Urgh! How do such men sleep at night?

[emulatorloo]

52. Do what you have to do, but if you stay home you are giving us Bush

for four more years I am sincerely asking you to rethink this position before November. I understand that you feel strongly that a vote for IWR disqualifies the candidates from deserving you vote. But I am certain that any of these frontrunners would make a better president than GWB and would do much to undo the damage that GWB has done domestically and in foreign policy.

[Tinoire]

11. Totally agree with your assessment but not your choices

Dean I can kind of understand. Clark I cannot because he went to Europe with Powell last year campaigning for this war despite what he is saying now.


26 January 2003
Is The WEF Playing Host To "Secret Oil Meeting" To Carve Up The Iraqi Black Gold Cake?
Davos, Switzerland: As helicopters continue to bring Chief Executives and world leaders into the Swiss alpine resort of Davos for this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Friends of the Earth has been reliably informed by WEF participants that a "secret" meeting of top oil executives is scheduled to take place here this weekend. Friends of the Earth International - the world's largest grassroots environmental network - has today challenged the WEF to either deny that such a meeting is taking place, or to come clean on which companies and governments are taking part and what is being discussed.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.
A recent Deutsche Bank report indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:
<snip>
http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop. Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html

[wtmusic]

18. Tinoire--that is awesome

Clark is sunk. How can he possibly say he's against the war after that?
:eyes:

[Tinoire]

31. The spin never stops_ Clark co-authored the occupation plan remember?

Do you remember the September 25 Presidential Debate?

Next question will go to, in order, Senator Kerry, Governor Dean and General Clark.

We're going to hear a lot about one figure tonight, that's $87 billion. It's been said it's more or less the down payment on the war with Iraq, the war with Afghanistan, the ongoing war on terrorism. Can we please tonight have your vote, up or down, yes or no? And if yes, how do you pay for $87 billion?

<snip>

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

<snip of Dean kind of dancing around the question>

WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?

DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts.

WILLIAMS: General Clark?

CLARK: Well, Brian, if I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics...

(LAUGHTER)

... you better be careful with hypothetical questions, and you've just asked one.

<snip>

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate... and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

via redirect courtesy of http://www.democrats.org/

[Nederland]

13. Disagree

Even though personally I opposed Bush's war policy, I'm not going to confuse my personal beliefs with those held by most Americans. For example, I've have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that a majority of Americans will vote against someone simply because they voted yes on the Iraqi War resolution. Its simply not as important an issue to most Americans as it is to most people here at DU.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Most Americans' knowledge about the world around them...

is confined to news about Kobe, Jacko, Scott Petterson, Britney, and Paris Hilton.

We take pride in our ignorance!

[Tinoire]

42. Most Americans are watching this scene

Most Americans know that people are dying over there

Most Americans are remembering Mohammed Al-Dura and realizing that Iraq will soon be one huge Gaza Strip.

Most Americans know what this means for their sons and daughters.

[Nederland]

70. Sure

Most Americans are remembering Mohammed Al-Dura...

Yeah sure, as if most Americans know who Mohammed Al-Dura is.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Do a Google on the name, and then ask yourself...

why are we financing the carnage in the Middle East?

[bluestateguy]

16. That's what I would prefer too

but I would remind you that there are going to be other issues in this campaign that will greatly affect the future of the nation.

Cast your lot with Ralph Nader this time and you give George W. Bush the power to appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. The basis of the Iraq war vote

The vote was taken on the basis of a lie.

It wasn't an act of concession toward Bush; if Saddam had really had nuclear weapons, it would have become necessary to make sure they would never be used, even at the price of war. Even France would have come on board within a few days. But in those few days, it became clear that Bush was lying, which has now been proven.

Saddam didn't have a bomb, he didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and they have yet to find so much as a milliliter of Sarin or a culture of Anthrax. So Bush lied to get the vote to turn out this way.

I really can't stress the dangerousness of this lie enough. He lied to Congress to compel action on one of the most profound decisions that it can make, to authorize warfare.

And he lied to us to compel our support.

George Bush took us to war based on lies.

The Congress voted for the war based on those lies.

Our economy will be hobbled for years based on Bush's lies.

It also means that in the future, the Congress will be unable to know whether Bush is telling the truth or lying.

Basing a decision on the candidate reacted to a lie is an excercise in ill-logic. You don't get an accurate measure either way.

Because of that, I can't use the voting results to decide for or against anybody. I'll be deciding who to vote for based on the overall agendas and histories of the candidates. Right now, I'm split between Clark and Dean, but most of the candidates rank as "good" or better in my book.

Don't take this as a flame. I think it's an important issue that a lot of people miss, even here on DU. We have become so used to Bush's intemperate behavior that single episodes do not seem very important. But this one was a major lapse of morality. We shouldn't minimize the gravity of his lie -- nor should we try to draw too many conclusions from those who acted on it in good faith. They aren't war-mongers.

They are simply people who thought, when the situation got serious, that the President wouldn't lie to them.

--bkl

[Tinoire]

43. Can't buy that

George Bush took us to war based on lies. (check)

The Congress voted for the war based on those lies.
(they didn't know he was lying?)

They knew full well he was lying through his teeth. They knew it but for whatever reasons they jumped on board. This the same people who approved 8 years of sanctions and daily bombings against Iraq saying that it was ok that 500,000 innocent Iraqi children died.

Kucinich knew he was lying. I even posted some testimony in this thread (Hamza) where it's pretty clear how laughable the whole thing was.

Cynthia McKinney knew and SAID he was lying through his teeth.

Barbara Lee was pretty clear.

What was wrong with most of the guys running now? If want to pretend they didn't know he was lying then they are too stupid to be President.

[DjTj]

21. Disagree - you can have supported IWR but be against Bush's decisions...

The IWR didn't say "piss off the UN and then don't allow them to bid on contracts so they'll be even more pissed at you."

There is plenty to criticize with what Bush did *after* the IWR was passed.

Although Dean says it was a blank check, it won't look real good if Bush tries to claim it was a blank check.

Kerry and Edwards have both consistently criticized Bush's actions in the postwar period. Bush saying, "but you voted for the war" will not be good enough because Bush was still responsible for building a coalition and having a postwar plan.

If it is an issue at election time, only Lieberman and to a lesser extent Gephardt will not be able to use this issue.

[IndianaGreen]

23. I didn't see Kerry demanding that Bush be impeached

when Bush "broke his word" to Kerry (Kerry's version of events) that he would go to war as last resort.

[bearfartinthewoods]

27. because kerry isn't a stupid man

one year from election....impeachment attempt would be folly and even talking about it would be a distraction during the campaign.

[nomaco-10]

29. Not folly....

political suicide in his opinion. Better to go with the status quo and not shake up the system for the 2004 run, unlike his fellow Mass senator and mentor Ted Kennedy.

[Tinoire]

44. Bingo & loses points of respect for that big time

It is a damn good thing for Kerry he was ahead enough on the Progressive curve that many people are willing to over-look that.

It still causes problems for me because it shows me a side of Kerry I don't like. This was reinforced when Military Families Speak Out went to meet with him and he refused to meet with them.

Kerry is a political operative- very afraid of land-mines.

[DjTj]

28. He wouldn't say that in a debate...

...do you really think the debate would go:

Kerry: You broke your word that you would go to war as a last resort.

Bush: Well, why didn't you impeach me, then? Ha! Gotcha!

...really, Bush would never say that because Kerry would just say that only Repugs go on impeachment witch hunts, that the Commander in Chief should be allowed some discretion and that if Kerry were President, he would have waited to go into Iraq until there was a better coalition or a better postwar plan.

Although Kerry loses this debate with Dean, he would not lose this debate with Bush.

[nomaco-10]

26. Help me add to this list...

Robert Byrd
Paul Wellstone
Ted Kennedy
Dennis Kucinich

These are some of the dems that won't be sitting in the Oval Office next year, but I stand with them just the same. Please feel free to add other names to this list.

[Tinoire]

46. McKinney Lee Boxer Feingold Chaffee (R) n/t

Peace

[nomaco-10]

48. Rep Jay Inslee D- Washington Quote...

October 10, 2002
Quote: "It is not a victory to strike down one tyrant and breed
10,000 terrorists".

[Tinoire]

50. You would think we would have learned

after observing the other Gaza strip. Inslee gets an A+.

[corporatewhore]

33. We need a cannidate who cannidate who does not support the occupation

[Clark4VotingRights]

71. A candidate who makes the tough leadership decisions when the pressure

is on, instead of taking the politically expedient route.
The route that, BTW, led to deaths of thousands and
to the bill of rights.

Otherwise, how can they stand on the same stage as *
and challenge him on his crimes?

[poskonig]

41. IWR != "war supporter"

There is a difference between a Gephardt, who thought the war was a good thing and worked to cut off debate about it in the House, and a Kerry, who made the effort to get Bush to go to the Congress, and wasn't thrilled about the rush to war.

[isbister]

47. I don't think Lieberman will get nominated

and am not even sure he agreed with bush's entering Iraq on a timetable (as opposed to properly building a coalition) as bush did.

[Lexingtonian]

51. That's too easy

it has become clear that Iraq will continue to be a major if not the major issue in the election this year.

As I see it, as an issue it functions as a stumbling block rather than an incentive to vote.

If we nominate someone who supported the w ar, we basically concede that it was the right thing to do and that it has made this country safer.

The situation was moderately complicated; lumping a lot of Presidential candidates with non-trivial distinctions between their position and the Admin i stration's as "war supporters" is disingenuous if not prevaricating. As a matter of fact, a state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq- the end of the 1991 war was an armistice, not a peace treaty. Everyone observing the situation admits that what w ent on during the later '90s was in fact a constant low intensity warfare- a situation Clinton tried to, but could not, improve upon.

It would be more honest, I believe, to draw distinctions according to support for armed invasion and violent overthro w o f Hussein, not according to "war"-which was already an indistinct reality.

If we concede that argument, I can not see how we avoid losing the election.

You neglect to examine the Bush Administration calculation behind it. They came to believ e th at they could (1) beat any Democrat who mounted open opposition, and (2) drown out the argument of any Democrat who took a middle position.

I'm inclined to think that they are right about (1) but not necessarily about (2). I realize that is the opp osite to what you appear to believe.

The argument about (1) is that a sufficiently large majority did back waging the war for the several months in which the choice was presented to them. Too many of them are going to get annoyed with a candidate who vocall y claims much higher moral ground than themselves- they'll refuse to vote for the guy. Psychology of Guilt 101- blaming the victims isn't going to get you votes from them.

They will, however, ultimately vote for a guy who says "Hey, I misunderstood the thing too, the thing was all bungling by the Bush people, Bush takes no responsibility for the f-up it has become. But now that we've broken it we've bought it- so let's just do the best we can, which will be far better than anything the Bush people can achieve." It's a fatalistic p.o.v. and works with voters. The reason Republicans thought this scenario (2) wouldn't work was disrespect of the media for Democrats. But it seems that as Bush's and Republican support numbers have shown persistent downward trajectory the media have started seeing Republicans as less than an sure bet, and events of the past year have demonstrated to the media that a Democratic audience/market of nearly the same size and non-persuadibility is out there and must be catered to in roughly equal measure.

So I think you might want to think about whether what you claim is a kind of Emotional Correctness or Political Correctness spawned of emotional takes on what has taken place. No one says you should not have emotions, but emotions rarely lead to intuitions or insights in this arena. But you may want to first find the realest and most powerful distinction- dispassionately, because you can't afford to get it wrong- and only when convinced of it throw all the passion you have into the argument than can be built from the distinction found.


[lcordero]

53. I agree but I am not for Dean/Clark

or anybody that supported the war in even the slightest way.

Having a nominee that supported the war on Iraq is going turn off the younger generation of voters.

Having a pro-war nominee is going to disgust that newly registered voter, the military vote, and the minority vote. Don't even expect the Democratic Party to survive should it have a pro-war nominee.

pro-war= pro-corruption = pro-corporatism = anti-people = anti-poor = anti-rights = PRO-LIE

The war on Iraq represents a lot of issues, not just one.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/protestphotos.html

[PATRICK]

54. A too long reply, but I disagree

All the major candidates down to the one holding the gold standard on the vote(Kucinich) oppose the Bush war and never wanted to see things happen the way they did. This is where most people are, were or will be who are not blind Bush fanatics. The people who did not concede the inch to the proven mile grabber did not expose the real problem, i.e. Bush is inherently rigid and untrustworthy and when embarked on a presidential duty cannot be trusted. In essence everyone was beating around the Bush, who was hiding behind "the troops" and "national defense".

So the slow, costly road to truth is one everyone has taken, and one our candidates are vying to lead us on and off back to the right path. The litmus test should be: "Why did you concede Bush anything at all?", because from all the evidence(meager and buried as it is in many cases) all the public good would be a lie holding the truth hostage for the benefit of a usurper.

When Theft 2000 was conceded every other concession followed. Not only was the Presidency of Bush illegitimate, it turns out just about all his policies and agendas are even more so, especially those that had bipartisan roots waiting for the Bush manipulation. It is a small group of Americans indeed who even spoke these now painfully proven truths, and it was more comfortable to do that if you were safely(for the moment) beyond the circles of power. And you can define what most people still see of this truth as a shadowy and uncertain disapproval under enforced ignorance and confusing hype.

The dilemma being I suppose, that if you dug in your heels and said no from start to finish, you wouldn't be running in the primaries, you'd just be running, maybe running away from engagement and surrendering the system now compromised. I am not saying anyone understood that completely. I think they thought they could do their Congressional duty and try to balance and guide the misguided hand. I think that was a mistake to hope and do your duty, although it sometimes seemed we were achieving something. Someone else had to take the Bush issue head on and Dean has done that, but has he succeeded? We are gambling that finally the wall that kept our people from being like every other nation that saw through this bloody charade will give. It has not yet and the war like the Vietnam War can be muted and and silenced until we lose. Yet the wall of Bush "popularity" and invincibility is breaking away in large chunks because of the whole picture. If people haven't gotten the horror of the war crime, all the other things are combining to create a vast negative and a yearning for someone new to lead us out of the fear malaise Bush defines in person and policy.

Realistically we have four great candidates. If the war vote does matter that much, the general Democratic voters(most likely to be anti-war) can decide. Up to now, it seems that each candidate has great and growing support with no judgment on a single issue so much as electability itself. Or we certainly will have more wars, more deaths and these a distracting a foretaste of even worse disasters to come.

[KittyWampus]

55. I Am Not A One Issue Candidate

Although signing the Patriot Act would be a second Issue I strongly disagree with Kerry and Edwards.

I can live with Kerry as he happens to have LOTS of experience in Government and enough Foreign Policy credentials that I wouldn't lose sleep. Kerry knows who is to be trusted and who is not.

Kerry also has some Military background which isn't important to me personally... but will help in reducing the role Junior will play as Commander in Chief.

[the populist]

56. Yes we can

First of all, the only anti-war candidate is Kucinich.

What's wrong with having a pro-war candidate? It's not like Dean will withdraw from Iraq. He said so himself.

[Zynx]

57. We can't because we would concede the issue to Bush if we did.

If we concede that the war has made this country safer, we will not win the election.

[the populist]

59. Well if you're

if you're an upper-middle class kid with no future to worry about, then maybe war is the only issue.

But as far as I'm concerned, Bush is selling out the American worker.

[Zynx]

60. Of course he is selling out the American worker, but the war is part of

a larger fabric of issues. If we concede the war on Iraq was the right thing to do, it was part of the war on terror, and has made this country safer, we have conceded the entire national security argument to Bush. It will be very hard to overcome that.

[the populist]

63. No that's not true

Bush went to war unilaterally. He insulted Chirac. He patronized Schroeder. If he had gone in AFTER the inspections had finished and WITH the UN, then we would have not been in this quagmire.

[citizen snips]

58. What if the nominee is someone who supported the war?

I mean look at the facts there are more that people support the war in Iraq than the people who do not support the war in Iraq.

[Zynx]

61. How does agreeing with Bush woo those guys over?

We can not simply concede the argument because a majority agrees with Bush now. If we do we are finnished because people will just keep the incumbant in that scenario. You don't win by agreeing.

[askew]

64. I have to agree with you about nominating someone who didn't

vote for IWR or the Patriot Act. The vote for IWR has sent 500 U.S. soliders and thousands of Iraqis to their deaths. The Patriot Act has many parts that are unconstitutional. This is one reason I support Dean. Out of the candidates who voted for IWR, I have more respect for Gephardt and Lieberman, because they voted their conscience, unlike Kerry. Kerry voted for IWR for political reasons made obvious by his inability to "own his vote". And if he make this life and death choice for political reasons, can we expect him to sell out again in the White House.

[wyldwolf]

65. Yes we can, and we will

Because Sharpton or Kucinich will not be the nom.

[arewethereyet]

66. America disagrees with you

the point is, this is not the issue that wins for us and you can't out "military" the CIC. Thats why I'm opposed to both of those gentlemen.

[Zynx]

72. We have to convince most Americans that they are wrong.

If we don't we have lost the election.

[mitchum]

82. But most Americans are already convinced that YOU are wrong...

and they have the numbers.

Do you honestly believe that the war is the only thing we have to criticise * with?

[arewethereyet]

83. I have to disagree

we have far better issues with which to wage this campaign.

The effort you suggest is futile and unnecessary.

Go Edwards !

[Guaranteed]

95. You're totally right.

If we don't fight Bush, we WILL lose. Our only chance is fighting, and LEADING. Our candidate has to be somebody that people can get behind...not someone that they'll only "sympathize" with.

[ecstatic]

67. I agree. Bush told a terrible lie that still has not been fully exposed

Yes, Bush lied and misrepresented the facts to Congress/the Senate, but that is no excuse for going along with the resolution.

At least Hillary Clinton voted yes, not because she was influenced by Bush, but because her husband believed that Saddam was a threat. The others voted yes without taking the time to investigate the facts and hear both sides.

This Iraq war is going to continue for many years. Those who blindly agreed to it in the name of patriotism should not be rewarded.

[IndianaGreen]

80. If the Democrats were to moon Bush during his SOTUS speech

they would become instant heroes, and will get lots of publicity for weeks on end.

Why not moon the bastard? He lied last year, and he will lie again.

Here is another fact about WMDs in Iraq:

Danish army: Iraqi shells WMD-free
Sunday, January 18, 2004 Posted: 1526 GMT (11:26 PM HKT)

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Mortar shells found in Iraq and believed to be suspicious in fact contained no chemical agents, the Danish army said after a week of tests.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/sprj.irq.chemicals/index.html

People in Pakistan GET IT. when it comes to the proper way to treat a lying head of state, why can't the Democrats do the same during Bush's SOTUS?:

Musharraf barracked by MPs
Last Updated: Saturday, 17 January, 2004, 16:02 GMT

Pakistan's President Musharraf has been continuously heckled by opposition MPs during his first speech to parliament since taking power in a coup in 1999.

"Go Musharraf, go!", they shouted during his 45-minute address and a small group of MPs walked out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3404375.stm

[Clark Can WIN]

93. Exposing the lie, running against the lie

And running for a restored economy, as well as restored standing in the world community. That's how we win.

We are NOT going to win shaking our finger at the majority of Americans and telling them that they were wrong.

[Monte Carlo]

69. We're electing a President here, not a Pope...

... and we don't need morality litmus tests to determine our nominee. And Bush does not need a Democratic candidate that voted 'yes' on the IWR to confirm the war's righteousness; that has passed.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Pssst, the war is still going on!

Iraq did not surrender. No papers were signed. The war is still ongoing.

[kentuck]

73. If we nominate a "pro-war" candidate, we cannot use the war as an issue

That is obvious. We could not publically be against the war and have our candidate supporting the war. That seems simple enough.

[sangha]

74. I strongly disagree

There's no reason why any of the Dems couldn't say "Bush* failed to plan for the artermath of the invasion. Bush* said we'd be welcomed as liberators with flowers and candy. Instead, we're geting RPG's and IED's. Bush* said we could "shock and awe" the Iraqis into nearly surrendering, leaving their infrastructure intact for when we restored democracy. Instead, we got looting, bombings, and shortages of gas, propane, and electricity. Bush* said we wouldn't need to stay in Iraq for more than 6 months. Instead, we're now looking at years and years of having our troops shot at......"

[sandnsea]

76. That's why we CAN use it as an issue

And there aren't any pro-war candidates anyway. But people will listen to somebody who supported the purpose but not the method a whole lot more than somebody who says Saddam had chem/bio weapons and we shouldn't do anything about it. We had this battle. We lost it. It makes no sense. People are ready for the U.S. to lead on the issue of WMD's around the world. We need a candidate who has proven he is ready to do that. That means either a General who has enough credibility to explain his anti-war position. Or, somebody who voted yes on IWR.

And, BTW, Clark is going to have a tough time explaining his opposition to the war when he, himself, said Saddam was a threat that had to be addressed sooner or later. Sept 26, 2002, testimony to Congress.

[RafterMan]

92. Explaining?

Why not just read the testimony yourself?

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

As Richard Perle concluded at the same hearing, "So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

Do you really think that was bad advice?

[mlawson]

75. SupportED is one thing. 'Still supports' is quite another.

Who still says they would have voted to go to Iraq, had they known that all the intelligence was falsified?? Only Lieberman, I think, and he is not going to be the nominee.

[Guaranteed]

96. Another term might be "allowed." nt

[cindyw]

78. There is no way Lieberman is getting nominated, so this is non-issue.

The rest of them do not support the war, so why even ask.

What is we have a nominee with monkey's flying out of his rear. Not gonna happen so why ask.

[mitchum]

79. Hey..."it's the economy, stupid"

that's how we Democrats will win this election (as we always do)

Nice try,though...

[markus]

85. If we admit the War was ever possibly right, we have lost

We will lose not just the election, but the country.

The only acceptable candidate who voted for the IWR to me is one who comes out and says, "George Bush lied to create an unnecessary war."

This is as fundamental an issue as: do you favor the expansion of slavery into the territories? It will be defining of our nation for the next century and beyond.

If we lost this battle (which is ultimately bigger than just this election), then we will have surrendered our country to corporate interests who would gladly use war as just another instrument of profit.

We need to recapture the center of American politics, and in the process destroy the Neo-Cons. They are as great a danger to the constitutional Republic as the revolutionary Tories, the pro-slavery (and ultimately successionist) leadership of the 19th century south, the plutocrats of the turn of the last century, or the pro-Nazi conservative movement of the 1930s.

They are intrinsically un-American, and a greater threat to America than Osama bin Laden.

Obviously, I don't share this view with people in letters I've written for Howard Dean. But I carry this conviction in my heart, and it motivates everything I do today.

That is why I feel that if the party nominates a candidate who says, "the war in Iraq was the right thing to do", the I will not be able in good conscience to support that candidate.

I don't have a policy quibble over the conduct of the war, or the lack of an exit strategy. I have a problem with adopting the logic of the Imperial Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor as model to base our own foreign policy upon.

Every candidate of any worth has already denounced the war. Gephardt, Edwards and Leiberman have already put themselves outside the pale. They are our party's and our nation's Neville Chamberlain.

I am not a starry eyed idealist, or I would be supporting Kucinich. I am supporting Dean because I believe he can motivate the anti-Bush half of the electorate to vote, and that every attack on him by Rove et al will only reinforce that vote.

Kerry is certainly more than acceptable. Clark is a cipher. If the phrase "how well do you know Howard Dean" gives you the shiveres, think about all of the contradictory things which Clark has said, largely his praise of the GOP (the current presidential incumbent included).

Howard Dean is not the candidate I would craft out of clay if I had the power to produce a Presidential golem. In fact, he behaves a bit too much the way such a golem might in a bad political fairy tale.

However, I believe he is electable, and he has planted his flag firmly against the forces of domineering corporatism (spare me the words about the tax shelters. I've read the articles, and if you're still using it to attack Dean rather than praise him, you probably have not).

If we do not nominate Dean, or Kerry (or even possibly the enigmatic Gen. Clark), then we have doomed ourselves, our party and our nation, to a period of economic bondage of a sort the southern slave-owning aristocracy could only dream, and a bloody campaign of war that will dwarf what our nation has heretofore known.

[Iverson]

86. Whaddya mean "we," paleface?

"We" Greens won't. "We" Democrats probably will. Your reasoning is sound, and it raises the question of why we need two war parties.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. I don't buy that.

As much as I was against the war from the getgo, and against Afghanistan, too, btw, I don't see who may or may not have supported it in the past as an issue.

Support or non-support prior to the start of it all was mired in politcs and other considerations. IWR was sold as permission to go in if necessary, and not as a declararion of war. Since it was understood from the getgo that the administration would probably do whatever it damn well pleased, and the Republicans would pass it anyway, voting one way or the other was largely based on one's own political considerations. Many of these congresscritters, like Daschle, have constituencies who were pretty much pro-war, and would have real problems if they voted against it.

The point is that the war is a fait accompli, and the question is just what do we do about it now?

The war is also a secondary issue, although an important one. It may be important to some single-issue voters, but is probably not a deal-killer with most voters. At least not the initial support of it.

[bread_and_roses]

90. I have bookmarked this thread

for the wealth of information in some of the posts, and because I think it will be interesting to look back as the campaign progresses. It is also notable for the absence of rancor and rant, and for nuanced evaluations.

I opposed the Iraq war and oppose the continued Occupation. I also oppose the operation/war/whatever we are calling it in Afghanistan. And our past and continuing support of Dictators around the world. So it is not just "anti-Iraq war I am looking for, but a plan to promote peace. Which obviously puts me in the DK camp.

But for a second choice, I lean toward Kerry, despite his inexcusable IRW and Patriot Act votes. Perhaps because I would hope that having achieved the Presidency, he would re-discover some of the moral courage that marked his early years in politics, and because I can "live with" his over-all record on progressive issues. But in the end, it is largely because he WAS in Vietnam and returned to oppose the war - he at least knows what sort of unwinnable hell wars against civilian populations are, and I could hope he would be thus loathe to use war as a tool to advance the profits of the multi-nationals.

As for the initiating post...I am not sure any of us know at this point on what grounds voters will judge who is pro/anti Iraq war, or how that percieved stance will play out come the fall. For sure, few people have the time or energy to parse out the issue the way it is analyzed here. I am not, for instance, at all sure that the message "I believed the President, but he lied to me" would not resonate with a lot of voters who may feel themselves to be in that boat if the Occupation continues to fail so specatacularly.

[Clark4VotingRights]

94. I would also like to mention the tens of thousands of dead/injured Iraqis.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001839220_iraqdispatch18m.html

"For the emergency-room doctors of Al Kindi, the first nine months of the U.S. occupation have been a dispiriting time. They thought the American rule would bring them more medicines, new equipment and a shot of hope to one of Baghdad's busiest hospitals.
...
Her name is Halla Ramdhan. She is one of about a half-dozen children being treated at the hospital who were accidentally injured in clashes between the U.S. military and insurgents since this summer.
She has always liked American soldiers. When she would see them as she was coming home from school, Halla would wave and say hello.

But in early December, playing on her rooftop, she had no time to wave. A wedding was under way next door, and the celebratory shots brought an American patrol into the streets below. She thinks they mistook her for a rooftop sniper. She says she ran to try to get out of the way, but a bullet from an armored vehicle tore off her right leg and struck her left leg.
...
Today, the 12-year-old is an amputee patient in a ward at the Al Kindi. Her mother, 40-year-old Ascha Karim, sleeps in a nearby bed and helps tend to the bandages swathed around Halla's left thigh and around the stump of her right leg.
Her doctor, Al Jedda, cannot forgive so easily.
For a woman without a leg, life in Iraq can be cruel, he says.
"When she will become an adult woman, she will understand more. I think she will never say hello to any American man.""