Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No one has yet to dispute this argument.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:27 PM
Original message
No one has yet to dispute this argument.
It has come to my attention that we are suppose to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were mislead. Bush is claiming the same thing. Where does the madness end? If we are to hold Bush accountable for his actions, we should also hold Kerry & Edwards accountable for their actions. If by chance either of these two become President and screw up again, are they to be forgiven again? To me it's the same argument, different parties. Edwards has an excuse, no experience, but in the same breath that doesn't look good on a Presidential resume. Kerry has no excuse, how long has he been in the Senate? It's all about accountability people & it might as well start in the primaries.


Kerry and Edwards are directly responsible for the deaths of 500 + service people in our armed forces, along with some other Democrats. I think it stinks they have yet to give a good explanation for it, Edwards still boasts it was the right thing to do.

I will do everything in my power to see that these two are not the Democratic nominee this is not what Democrats do.

Shame on them shame on them shame on them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. agreed
100 percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. They shouldnt get a pass because people like kucinich saw through it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
absyntheNsugar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't give them a pass
But don't vote against them in November (read: a vote for anyone but the Democrat candidate is a vote for Bush)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. At least with Bush i know my enemy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. That's a strange thing to say -
considering your handle, "democrats unite".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. My handle is just fine
I can't stand a wolf in sheeps clothing or should I say a repuke in Dems clothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #44
61. No, you just called Kerry and Edwards Republicans...
Not much of a uniter, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
68. Bullshit.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alopenia Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. You are absolutely correct on this point
You really can't be refuted on it. Both Bush and the senators are guilty of the same thing or both are innocent of the same thing. I don't any of them can slam the other on this issue. Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. I guess the part that really stings is the disrespect they showed...
our senior statesman, Robert C Byrd, who kept telling them what was happening...that it was not constitutional, etc, but they ignored our Party's most esteemed Senator to follow the advice of the Caligula of his time, George W Bush.... Not much in the way of judgement, if you ask me...but nobody asked me...:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zoeyfong Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
86. I want to puke every time i hear kerry criticise Bush on the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LosinIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
110. Robert Byrd, the wise elder statesman
I was so moved by his efforts to stop the war that I still want to have his child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastknowngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. If 500,000 protesters on the mall in Washington and
16 million people world wide knew this was bullshit how can any democrat plead ignorance? I'm sorry but if they are that dumb they should not be leading this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. they weren't dumb
they were politically calculating.

No guts, no spines, no balls means they are not the individuals or team to lead the Party, period!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #42
96. Exactly
It was a politically motivated vote. Shame on them is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Edwards has made it quite clear that he wasn't mislead
Which makes his support of the war even worse. By his logic, pre-emptive war was justified not because he was under some erroneous impression that Iraq was an immenent threat, but because his spidey senses said we should attack.
--------
MATTHEWS: <snip> Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. could you please post the link?
I need it for another thread. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Sorry for the delay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. That is just it.
Bush* has already found the way to neutralize the Iraq war issue against Kerry and Edwards. He will polish it on MTP on Sunday. We are having an investigation on how the intelligence services mislead the country. If needed, he will throw Tenet under the bus, but this issue will be off the table, if he is running against either Kerry or Edwards.

If we nominate either of these guys, our best issue will be rendered impotent. This is not electablilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
100. My problem with this argument
from Edwards, is that it does not look beyond getting rid of Saddam.

I am not a Senator, or a foreign policy expert, but the question of "What next" was never answered.

The NeoCon cabal spun a fantasy that it would be a "cakewalk", the Iraquis would "throw flowers at our troops."

But this was a preemtive war, an invasion, & nobody answered what will happen when the fighting stops? The Iraquis have no history of democracy, so we are left as an occupying force, trying to prevent a civil war from breaking out.

I just cannot understand the position that this was a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
119. I hope he misspoke.
"MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled. "

Isn't this the same as saying that any dictator has the potential to do some great evil, that we should invade, take over, and occupy that country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. A vote for IWR wasn't a vote for the way Bush ended up
conducting the war; it authorized him to go to the U.N. Not quite the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
69. More Kerry-Style "Nuance"
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zoeyfong Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
87. Oh, get real. We all know what that vote was about.
Of course, many wanted it both ways then and now. I recall Hillary Clinton saying something like she voted for the war in order to increase the chances of a peaceful resolution. Please. We all knew that Bush had long since made up his mind to go to war, and all he needed was the congressional ok and ass-covering. Many dems were only too happy to comply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calico4000 Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
128. Wrong
Maybe you should go read the resolution perhaps? Failing that, read a transcript of Senator Byrd's speech detailing EXACTLY what it did.

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Hi Calico4000
Welcome to DU! :hi:

Great post, btw. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wow seems like some people are avoiding this thread...
Like the plague!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yep, I agree with you completely
Kerry certainly shouldn't get a pass since tens of thousands of his constituents knew BushCo's claims were crap and bombarded Kerry's offices by fax and phone, pleading that he vote against. His vote was political arse-covering, nothing more, and literally outrageous.

I don't know what to say about Edwards--did his constituents oppose it too? I hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. do not become divided
and do not become distracted! No, Kerry and Edwards are not perfect. Neither are Dean or Clark. But any combination of these four is so much better than bush! And so that must be the #1 goal: defeat bush in November! Is Kerry part of the system/problem? Well, yes, he is a Senator, and he is not denying that. Bush denies being who he is ... satan.(smile) Okay, back to the point: Kerry was the one who started to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal, with Oliver North & Bush Sr undermining the US Constitution. Please keep that in mind if he does end up the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's not an argument it is a false characterization
of other people's positions.

You should state what you think, and let those who disagree with you speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14.  false characterization?
Whats false about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. If you want to have a discussion with people who disagree with you,
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 07:53 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
you can't speak for them. You have to speak for yourself, and let them speak for themselves.


You are making up a position that you disagree with, the only problem is, no one actually holds that position in reality, so you are just arguing with yourself.


Specifically:

"It has come to my attention that we are suppose to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were mislead. "


Just who is it that says: we are supposed to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were misled.


Did anyone actually say this to you or are you making it up?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I made a statement care to refute it?
Heres your chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. No, you set up a strawman.
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 08:02 PM by Feanorcurufinwe

This exchange is obviously going nowhere.




"It has come to my attention that we are suppose to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were mislead. "


Just who is it that says: we are supposed to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were misled.


Did anyone actually say this to you or are you making it up?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. So then it is safe to assume we should hold them accountable
Because if we don't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
50. Of course you should hold everyone accountable for everything they do.
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 02:27 AM by Feanorcurufinwe
Yet, of course, not everyone will necessarily agree as to the right and wrong of things. But certainly, you should follow your conscience and vote accordingly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Does it have to be a direct quote?
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 08:08 PM by Iverson
I have seen the argument made plenty of times that we should applaud Kerry on his IWR vote because it was a noble effort to rein in Bush.

That goes well beyond a free pass and into advocating praise. Sorry that I didn't take names, but it's been around here.

Now can we deal with the argument, or do the exact words in the exact order become the debate stopper?

edited typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. This persons candidates hand has been caught in the cookie jar
Can't give a good reason for it, so of course try's to defect from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
53. The strawman:
It's called a strawman.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Or, Fallacy of Weak Induction > Fallacy of Presumption

Explanation:

This is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption, because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance. Other names include Circulus in Probando, Circulus in Demonstrando and Vicious Circle.

A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:

1. A is true because A is true.

Here is an example of this most simple form of begging the question:

2. You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law.

Obviously driving on the right side of the road is mandated by law (in some countries, that is) - so when someone questions why we should do that, they are questioning the law. But if I am offering reasons to follow this law and I simply say "because that is the law," I am begging the question. I am assuming the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place.

3. Affirmative Action can never be fair or just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another. (quoted from the forum)

This is a classic example of a circular argument - the conclusion is that affirmative action cannot be fair or just, and the premise is that injustice cannot be remedied by something that is unjust (like affirmative action). But we cannot assume the unjust-ness of affirmative action when arguing that it is unjust.

However, it is not usual for the matter to be so obvious. Instead, the chains are a bit longer:

4. A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

5. A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #53
60. speaking of straw men ...
A review of definitions seems to overlook the content of the post and instead responds to what the arguer wishes was said.

You were provided with an answer to a question. If you have a different underlying warrant than mine, please be clear about it. However, do not presume that I share that warrant, lest you find non-sequitur style definitions tossed right back to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. You've been given answers
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 08:59 AM by bigtree
But you just keep repeating the question. You may not like them but the page is full of answers. You just can't, won't find satisfaction here for your premise. At least not from me.

I suggest writing: http://www.johnkerry.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. We have?
The question was asked: why should we ignore Edwards' and Kerry's vote for IWR when they claim being misled, but attack Bush when he said he was misled as well? How does that work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. reply/answer confusion
I get plenty of replies and few answers. Much of the time, I get rhetorical dodges that the writer expects aren't transparent.

They are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxr4clark Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Nope
There is no false characterization of Kerry or Edwards' vote going on here. They voted to give Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without further approval from Congress. Clark was invited to give testimony to the House Armed Services committee about whether to use force against Iraq; he made a strong case that the authority to use force was not called for, and should not be part of the resolution. Those are the facts, which can be verified by looking at the transcripts.

A lot of us were against giving Bush the authority to use force without coming back to the Congress. I wrote to my Senators to urge them to vote against the IWR. One voted for, one against; the one who voted for won't get my vote for reelection.

We got it right; Kerry and Edwards did not. We have a right to hold them accountable for their vote on this, and for their vote for the Patriot Act as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. they weren't "misled"
They knew EXACTLY what they were voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxr4clark Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
23. I think you meant
no one has yet refuted this argument. What you said means the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
25. Why didnt Clark speak up
all the times he was on CNN while bodies were being blown up? He sat there and cheerled for our troops like the rest of the generals and admirals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Clark did speak up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roddaddy Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Clark did speak up?
That's it? Clark did speak up? Can we ellaborate? A link maybe? A quote? 'Cause I tend to agree with the memory of him cheering right along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mobius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #28
46. LINKS?
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 12:35 AM by Mobius
Clark's opposition to the war was clear. Once the troops were committed, he wanted them to succeed. He has said over and over and over....again that he supported the troops, and wanted them to succeed in their mission, but that they were sent the wrong way at the wrong time, for the wrong thing.
Here is a video link for Clark, with over 100 different Clark videos, including the 11-17-03 interview on fox with Asman, the entire Hague testimony against Milosevic, and the entire testimony he gave before the IWR vote. Happy viewing!
http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #28
83. See it in his own words
Try this web site which has a full library of Clark videos. On the fourth page is an interview he did on 11/12/2002. Or go back to his testimony before Congress on 9/26/2002:

http://www.us4clark.com/fourthmediaclips.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #28
103. ah, here ya go!
Richard Perle: "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." -September 2002, testimony before Congress

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:


http://www.wewantwes.com/wesismore.htm

http://www.wewantwes.com/respect.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
49.  Gen. Clark has (had) no problem with Sen. Kerry's IWR vote
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 01:44 AM by bigtree

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. fixed link to Clark article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. Because once the "boots were on the ground" and Clark's
beloved troops were coming under fire, it would be absolutely inconceivable for him to do anything but cheer them on.

Here's what he was really thinking:

"Wes Clark does not like what George Bush has done with Wes Clark's Army. Make no mistake: It's his Army. He can hardly go a sentence without mentioning the military -- and how, in his mind, Bush has abused it. He sent it to war precipitously and then used its men and women as "props," he says. Clark's sincerity on this point is patent. In a conversation on his campaign plane, he suddenly turned intense, a kind of growling, low-grade rage that lifted my nose from my note taking. His Army has been abused." *

(Emphasis added)

*Richard Cohen, Karl Rove's Nightmare, WaPo, 1/15/04 p. A21
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #39
63. You're right Wes Clark
thinks it's his army. That makes him a very dangerous man. The last thing we need is someone in the white house who think it's his military and that it's his tool to use as he pleases. We have that now and we see where it has lead.

I hate to be the one to inform the good general but it is NOT his army, it never was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #63
80. Way to miss the point, there, Bowens43.
Now listen up: Wesley Clark loves those troops and thinks they're the true American heroes. He has also said REPEATEDLY that war should never be contemplated except as an absolute last resort, after every possible alternative has been explored to the fullest.

Please tell me exactly how this makes him a "very dangerous man...who thinks it's his military and that it's his tool to use as he pleases?"

You are describing George W. Bush. Wesley Clark is the polar opposite of Bush in every possible way.

Please explain to me how you have managed to conflate the two in your thinking. Thank you.


"Only someone who hasn't seen war firsthand would ever say anything as fatuous as 'Bring 'em on.'"

--Wes Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #63
105. get real dude
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxr4clark Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #25
58. Here's a set of links to statements made by Clark.
Bush can't handle the truth.

None of them are from when he was on CNN; CNN doesn't provide links to his on-air statements, as far as I can tell. But I distinctly remember him speaking out, giving his personal opinion that we should not attack Iraq. That was what made me first notice Clark, and what made me receptive to him when I heard he was running for President.

If the question is whether he supported a unilateral attack on Iraq, the answer is no, and he did speak up: in front of the House Armed Services Committee, where it would do the most good. His testimony was ignored by Kerry and Edwards, they voted to give Bush authority to use force without further recourse to the Congress. You can find a link to his testimony through the link given above.

If the question is, why didn't he speak out about the Iraq War while it was going on, that's simple. It was too late, and what he said wouldn't change anything, anyway. There is a strong feeling among military personnel that disagreeing with whether a war should be fought is a form of lending moral support to the enemy. Right or wrong, that is part of the culture that Clark spent his life in, and I would be very surprised if he would make any such statement during a period of major conflict.

He has, however, since the start of his candidacy been saying that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11, and that Bush should not have invaded Iraq. He says the same in his book, which was published in August 2003. He said the same in 2002. He started saying on CNN that switching from the pursuit of al Qaeda to an offensive against Iraq was a bad idea, and a distraction from the mission to get bin Laden, as soon as a move against Iraq was mentioned--shortly after the major hostilities were over in Afghanistan. I know, because I watched him say it. I didn't record it, though.

I believe his 2001 book, "Waging Modern War", also talks about how the United States should work multilaterally through international organizations rather than using its military power for domination abroad. That has been Clark's position the whole time; the "waffling" story is a creation of the media, which has been unsympathetic to his campaign from day one. It is based on a few misstatements he has made, and does not reflect any change of position on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
27. Bush was actively deceiving. Some believed it, while others didn't
Behind closed doors, they were told that there was a nuclear program in place and that they were potentially very close to a bomb. The ginned up estimates of other weapons was also given to them.

Many people didn't buy it (like Levin, Boxer, Wellstone), but many other good ones did (Harkin)

Edwards has said that, based on the information given, he agreed that the authorization should be given to allow the administration to use this as leverage to reinstitute the inspections and build a coalition if the inspections were blocked. Was he naive? Was he duped? If he was given information that was a pack of outright lies and he believed that there was going to be some actual attempt to pursue a solution short of war, then I can see that scenario. I don't like it, but I don't know what they were told. Neither do you.

Edwards has said that, based on that information, he made the decision he felt right. He has not snivelled that he'd never have done it if he knew better, he hasn't said much more than that. This was a very hard decision for him, and I don't think that means simply "how will this affect my career", but "what is right"? A lot of us have been shocked by the pure evil of this administration; that's one of the perils of being a decent person. Many on this board just couldn't believe that Junior'd actually invade.

We simply don't know what they were told, and it's classified.

I simply don't believe that Clark or Dean would have DEFINITELY voted against it if they'd seen the same information, and we'll never know.

I do understand your frustration, and it's legitimate. Take it from the heart that, even with that vote that I hate so much, I still truly admire and believe the guy. I've met him. For quite some time now, I've hired, cast and supervised many employees in many projects; in all immodesty, I'm a pretty good judge of character. I've been on record for disliking Dean for a very long time, and I've had great qualms about the broad flavor of Clark supporters, although many are also quite pleasant. Clark, in the past few days, has just fallen through the floor in my estimation of character, and his unwillingness to apologize for his outrageous lies confirms this.

In short, I have no real "justification" for this, only some glancing thoughts on the causality.

Henry Waxman voted for the IWR; is he a skunk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #27
43. "I've been on record for disliking Dean for a very long time"
...and you call yourself a good judge of character?
Discounting your views beginning now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #43
57. Do you think Kerry's a Republican?
Was it fair or nice to lie about "those four guys from Congress" voting for the tax cuts? (He meant the Senators; they all voted against them.) How about that sweet claim that he was the only one of them to talk about race in front of all white audiences? How about denying including Kucinich in a nasty group smear when confronted in a debate with absolute proof? He did that right to Kucinich's face. There's character.

How about walking in and snorting that he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", when, in truth, he was one of the most conservative and calculating people there? How about referring to "those cockroaches in Washington", when he's running for the job of Big Roach? That's not too swift.

It's all fun for those mad at the establishment, but it's beyond reckless. How about accusing Junior of knowing about 9-11 ahead of time, then somewhat retracting it? That's competence.

How dare he call John Kerry a republican; that's idiotic, incorrect and outrageous. He's dashed the hopes of many good people, and he's cast more bad light on the party in the process. The guy's got a whopper ego and no self control. He claims to have been the one who really brought up much of the domestic issues when this is absolutely false.

Howard Dean has major problems, and they are issues of character.

Somehow, many are blinded to all this because he "was against the war".

No. The guy's brought it upon himself, and he did it in nauseating ways. When confronted that certain other candidates had race issues in their stump speeches, thus disproving his claim, he retorted that he couldn't be expected to know everything they all said, yet a few weeks later, when the confederate flag flap came up, he snorted that he'd said it back in March. When Edwards was informed of this, he said he'd have mentioned it then had he known of it, and Dean puffed that he should have known. In short, others are obliged to hang on his every word, yet he has carte blanche to do as he pleases. Why should he be bothered to actually keep track of what the others say? They're inferiors. Why should he be troubled with accuracy when slamming them? He's good. He said so.

This is privilege. This is extreme hypocrisy.

No, I don't like Howard Dean, and these are all very good reasons for that distaste. Not recognizing them is willful self-deception or mere ignorance. Ignorance is excusable when one is somewhat polite and cosmopolitan, but when one is brash, presuming knowledge and presenting oneself as being aware, it is not ethical.

Somehow Dean walked in the room, pronounced most of the rest of the occupants to be morally inferior, and then granted himself the right to slag and dismiss as he pleased. He was incorrect in his self-assessment, and skittish in his flailings.

I can still see that many nice people, even some with a fair amount of knowledge, can still have a soft spot in their heart for him, but I think you need to see that dislike of the man is not proof of moral turpitude.

Please do respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #43
72. You're right about that.
Hello Ignore list...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Northwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
29. Damn straight
With Edwards. at least he sticks by his vote. I may not agree with it, but he maintains it was the right thing to do, even for the wrong reason, which I can respect somewhat even if I disagree.

But Kerry with his wishy-washy talk on the IWR gets no respect and no slack. Today he is condemning it, but if they find WMD tomorrow he will trumpet his vote as a triumph. Kerry has no scruples. He just says what he thinks people want to hear. He stands for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. Hear Hear! Questions needed to be asked and they weren't.
After 2000 I would have viewed anything BushCo said with deep suspicion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
32. You cannot be arguing that had Edwards or Kerry been President...
they would have invaded Iraq, can you? You don't believe that either John would have set up an Office of Special Operations or whatever it was called, do you? That he would have had the likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney and Pearl working for him, do you?

They they would have swallowed the PNAC Kool-Aid...

Is that your argument?

Because we know what Bush will do.

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. They voted for it didn't they?
What else Am I supose to believe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Give them a pass? They didn't invade and occupy Iraq!
They didn't do it. Yes, they went along with a very bad plan, thinking consultation, moderation and cooperation with ou r allies would rule the day. They were wrong.

And both support an independent investigation into the reliability of what they were told in the intel commitee.

Yes they were used by Karl, or will it turn out they use him?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. Well if they can be used so easily when the WORLD was telling...
Them other wise! I don't want them as President of the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. This is good
first we lobby against the IWR, then promise not to vote for any of its supporters, now "they really didn't mean it"?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
34. Actually, we're probably really giving Edwards and Kerry a pass on this
issue because we all know that know Democrat is going to win who argues that America shouldn't be perceived as addressing threats (real or imagined) and we know that Bush was going to find a way to do what he wanted and that the IWR vote was a trap set for Democrats that they averted by not appearing to be anti-national security, and because Iowa and NH voters and polls from all the states reveal Democrats understand that this is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elsiesummers Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
76. AP, agree. But Edwards represents conservative NC constituency. Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
37. What crap. The misleading was only part of it. Bush dissed Congress


Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged
But I reject the argument that those same principles were betrayed in just voting for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. Congress would be loath to remove forces after they are committed.

In that event, I believe, the Congress would not retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It sucks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR.

The only way to re-direct him is through some sort of resolution. Remember, we were outraged by his plans but the majority of Americans didn't make much of a fuss. We had lost the PR battle before the vote.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Your flogging around of the deaths is disgusting. You don't hold a lock on morality with your view and neither do I. You make no credible connection between the IWR vote and Bush's unilateral, preemptive end run around Congress.

Therefore, your attempt to place blame on those in Congress who sought to restrain Bush through the resolution falls well short of any acquiescence on these men's part in Bush's committing of our forces to war.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

The 'Blame The Democrats First' strategy will backfire. Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed foward with unilateral. preemptive war.

It is clear that John Kerry didn't vote for what Bush ultimately did. It is clear that he had the will and the authority to commit the forces without Congress. You are just factually wrong that it was Congress who sanctioned or mandated unilateral, preemptive war in the resolution. John Kerry intended to forestall war with the restraints he helped negotiate in the resolution.


Key Passages From John Kerry's Floor Speech
(borrowed from Dr. Funkenstein)

Making it clear

I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out.


Speaking prophetically


If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.


Was the threat imminent?


Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent.

None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.


Saddam sought nuclear weapons, but did not have the capability


According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade.


The 9/11 connection


In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region? And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?


No regional war, no regime change


The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force against Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to defend the "national security" of the United States - a power he already has under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief - and to enforce all "relevant" Security Council relations related to Iraq. None of these resolutions, or for that matter any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, call for regime change.

As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war...Regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.


Bush scares off allies with loose talk


By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the Administration raised doubts about its bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war - that in the post-September 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return is in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public internal debate for a rationale for war, the Administration complicated its own case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. And by engaging in hasty war talk, rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration placed doubts in the mind of potential allies, particularly in the Mideast where managing the Arab streets is difficult at best.


We need allies to bear the burden of nation-building


If we do go to war with Iraq, we have an obligation to the Iraqi people, and to other nations in the region, to help create an Iraq that is a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long-term, costly and not without difficulties given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq and history of domestic turbulence.

In Afghanistan, the Administration has given more lip-service than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot let that happen in Iraq. We have to be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes and to commit the necessary financial and technical resources, which could amount to billions, to succeed. The challenge is great: an Administration which made nation-building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan if it intends to meet it.

The President needs to give the American people a fuller and clearer understanding of the magnitude and the long-term financial costs of this effort. The international community's support is critical, because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. In the final analysis we will need the commitment of others, particularly nations in the region, to achieve this task.


What his own experiences as a soldier taught him


One of the lessons I learned fighting in a very different war at a very different time is that we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I know what it means to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That's why I believe so strongly that before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people need to know why -- they need to know we've put our country in a position of ultimate strength -- and that we had no options short of war to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.


Bush originally tried to end-run Congress


The Bush Administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed...The Administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property - last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgetrimmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. There is no "crap" the senators in question gave the power that belongs
to congress to the executive branch of our government. They have sherked their responsibilities as representitves of this union and acted unconstitutionally.

There is a curtain that falls heavly over the eyes of well intentioned citizens on this issue... it does not matter if the administration "lied" to congress, it is the responsibility of congress to declare war not hand that balance of power into a uni-fold of executive prowess.

This is an issue and requires the voter or supporter of these senators to honestly know the actions made and the effects brought forth. The way this issue is trying to be side stepped only further degenerates the credibility of the senators at hand and tries to make it o.k. because "we gave the power to the pResident".

(The IWR was not just about Iraq but, to go to war at any time with any one.)

The longer this goes on the more credibility they lose.

Many blessings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. No one handed anything over. You are just wrong on the facts.
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 01:34 AM by bigtree

I provide statements. I can provide the resolution and show you where the restraint is mandated. You have to remember that Bush as president has the power to commit our forces whenever, and wherever he wants to by merely notifying Congress within 48 hours. If Congress does not ratify the deployment then forces have to be withdrawn. That is a loophole that effectively gives initial power (accepted or not) to commit forces.

At any rate, the resolution did not cede undue authority to the president.


ACLU Says Military Action in Iraq Without Congressional Approval Would Be Unconstitutional
Friday, September 13, 2002
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n091302a.html


In a letter to Congress, the ACLU urged the House and Senate to avoid a vague or open-ended war resolution, such as that passed in 1964 after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and to clearly demarcate what, if anything, Congress intends to authorize. By policy, the ACLU is stridently neutral in questions of military action overseas, but has - from Vietnam to Kosovo - fought to retain legislative oversight over American war-making.

The Administration’s lawyers are gravely mistaken, the ACLU’s letter says, in their assertion of President Bush’s unilateral authority to take preemptive action against Hussein. The letter points out that under the very language of the Constitution, the President has absolutely no authority to initiate a war -- absent the immediate and imminent threat of an armed attack on American soil.

The ACLU’s letter also strongly contested White House arguments that both the September 11 congressional resolution authorizing force to combat terrorism and the original declaration of the Gulf War vest sole military authority in the President as regards Iraq. First, the ACLU said, the White House has not put forward clear evidence of Iraqi complicity in last year’s attacks, precluding the use of that congressional resolution to support military action. Second, the original declaration of the Gulf War did not mandate that Iraq comply with weapons inspections or even disarm, conditions imposed after the war had ended.

If Congress supports military action to oust Hussein it must make its support explicit in a new and specific resolution. Otherwise, the ACLU said, it will be, by its silence, countenancing unlawful activity by the Executive Branch.



Re: S.J. Res. 46 and H.J. Res. 114 Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100902a.html

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and its approximately 300,000 members, we write regarding S.J. Res 46 and H.J. Res. 114, which are identical resolutions negotiated between Congressional leaders and the White House authorizing military force against Iraq.

We take no position on whether or under what conditions force should be used. Under the Constitution, however, decisions whether to use military force require Congress's consent.

The President's initial draft of a resolution authorizing the use of force effectively usurped for the Executive war making authority of Congress because it: (i) did not specify the countries against which force could be used; (ii) violated the Constitution and War Powers Act by asserting unilateral Presidential war-making power; and (iii) failed to state an objective for the use of force.

The compromise resolution before you addresses the first two concerns, but not the third. It limits the use of force to Iraq and specifically reaffirms Congress's role in approving military force by referencing the War Powers Act. However, instead of stating an objective for the use of force, it delegates to the President the power to take action he deems necessary to "defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq." This language creates a potential danger in that the President might use the authority granted by Congress in ways Congress did not anticipate and would not have approved.

Because ACLU takes no position on whether force should be used, we take no position on whether you vote for or against this resolution.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington National Office

Timothy H. Edgar
ACLU Legislative Counsel




October 2, 2002

Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
446 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225

Hon. Richard G. Lugar
Member
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
450 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225

Re: Proposed Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

Dear Chairman Biden and Senator Lugar:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and its approximately 300,000 members, we write to thank you for your efforts to craft a resolution that contains meaningful standards that make clear what Congress is authorizing the President to do with respect to Iraq.

The President's initial draft was a blank check. It did not specify against which countries force could be used or the objectives of military action. It violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by asserting unilateral Presidential war-making power. Congress would have been evading its constitutional obligations if it were to enact such a resolution.<1> By contrast, your resolution sets forth specific criteria for military action -- both with and without the approval of the United Nations -- and reaffirms Congress's war powers.

Whether your resolution specifies the right criteria for military action is for Congress to determine. We take no position on whether or under what conditions force should be used. Under the Constitution, however, decisions whether to use military force require Congress's consent. For that debate to be meaningful, a resolution must spell out clearly what Congress intends to authorize. We believe your efforts are playing a vital role in doing so.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington National Office

Timothy H. Edgar
ACLU Legislative Counsel

cc: Members of the United States Senate



TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: "America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm."

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgetrimmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
77. Lets begin the sword fight of language.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/uscongress100302.htm

The above link is the resolution.

I will say that a small portion of what i said was a cris-cross of many things that had been said at the time of the attack Iraq resolutions.

I will also say that your link for the ACLU (letter to congress) is representative of my views. The administration has tried and has put forth ideals that link Syria to Iraq and can by way of the for-mentioned resolution ...

~SNIP~

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

~END~SNIP~

can make war on any place in which the administration can link a "continuing threat".

This is an open ended resolution in the guise of pin-pointed accuracy by way of language. This resolution in all effective and non-effectivness has superceded the balance of powers into a growing uni-fold of executive branch prowess.

The senators in question have by way of a yay and not a nay endorsed this continuim of power flow into the executive branch.

Further, this does not bring to mention the Patriot Act or the "OMNI BUS" which also must be taken into consideration by prospective voters.

As you began your response post with ..."No one handed anything over. You are just wrong on the facts"... we all need to check the facts of the candidates we support and do not support and come with an informed decision on why we support and not support any candidate.

Many blessings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
90. Hard to argue with the ACLU
This is the part though that I believe involves the president and his word.

Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq? According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

Why aren't the nay voters calling for a new resolution like Dennis in his call to repeal the authorization. Where is that push in Congress now from all of the dissenters? I'll tell you where. They had a chance to modify the war in two seperate funding bills. I know that my candidate voted against that $87 billion. That's as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate have managed. This is in the wake of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.


Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq? U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his prescense there and his candor.


Bush broke other important mandates of the Congressional resolution

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) 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.



Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgetrimmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. O.K so bush broke mandates... where the hell is the screaming?
Bush has been an ass and a liar before the resolution... where was the screaming... how many times have we here at DU embraced the hard hitter of the Democrats ... how many times did we get angered by the passivity of our representitves... how deep were we hurt upon the death of Welstone?

While the masses were shouting in opposition around the world, while the Germans held our leader as a quest with protests outlined by a large image of a pretzel, while in our own homes and backyards defiance marched to city halls...

when the all of mankind had a moment...

war was the answer, permission granted...

... no show at how many votes this people needed, yay upon how many infringements on this peoples right's, nay upon how many of this peoples need's...

If not now, then... what, then what...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. Look. We don't know the nature and amount of 'evidence' that was presented
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 01:21 AM by bigtree
Those who we entrust to protect us have to make their own judgements. In John Kerry's case we know that he had as much on Saddam as anyone. He felt that if the administration's evidence, which had been accepted by the U.N., had any validity then there was a threat there. Not an imminent threat that mandated we go it alone -the resolution expresses that - but a threat that would have been appropriate to respond to within the framwork of the resolution and 1441.

But Bush lied. The premise of his initial 1441 bid was phony. The rest was a snowball. No one was willing to let the U.N. have the last word. The resolution isn't perfect. But it is flawed mostly in the hands of a liar. That's the point in the proposition that Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international commuunity and rushed to war.

Here we go round again. For my candidate's part the outrage is contained in the statements I have included above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #93
101. I hate to remind you that Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D G Donating Member (273 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
48. You know, I must have missed that memo -
- the one that said:
It has come to my attention that we are suppose to give Kerry & Edwards a pass on this vote because they were mislead.

Define "a pass."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DebJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
51. misled or for other reasons, Kerry/Edwards were wrong. I want someone
who knows how to do it right. And I don't want any excuses.
The buck stops here. Like it does with Howard.
Be honest. Fess up: we screwed up, and it doesn't matter WHY.

Aren't we still paying multiple millions to cover the costs of getting Clinton to fess up for what he did with his own body and that of another consenting of-age adult? Wasn't that cost supposedly justified just to prove the truth? Aren't all Dems fighting against the lies of the Repubs? If not a 'lie', there is definitely something too political and unclean for me in anyone who won't simply say "I made the wrong decision, even though millions of the people who pay me knew it was wrong at that time."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. This is not the same as all of that
Your argument is your buisness but it is a simplification of the events surrounding the vote. They didn't screw it up. Bush did.

As for Dean: Catbird seat.

It's easier to label his anti-war position as craven, considering his stated support for a similar bill (Biden-Lugar) which would have give similar guidance to Bush on Iraq. Bush disregarded all of the restraint counseled in the legislation. He would have likely disregarded the restraint intended in the alternative supported by Gov. Dean.

If that legislation had passed Bush could still have committed our forces and proceeded to war. If the alternative had passed and Bush had proceeded to war, would Dean be culpable. That's the question. What would have been different if the alternative that Gov. Dean supported had become law and then been disregarded by Bush? The governor would be no more complicit in the Bush's abuse of authority than Congress.


". . . words uttered by former Vermont governor Howard Dean during the Children's Defense Fund forum. Dean said:

"We need to contain Saddam, we should have contained Saddam. We got rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-10-hype_x.htm


Howard Dean praised the capture of Saddam. Uses the bogus terror alert to bolster his case that we're no safer for his capture.

He supported the removal of Hussein.

Didn't outline how.

Took his cards and stomped off when a similar resolution he supported fails. Didn't have to vote. Just criticized and waited for the campaign to start and stuck it to those who did have to vote.

Catbird seat.


'Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politick Donating Member (885 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #54
111. your arguments
are excellent. You're very skilled, thoughtful and persuasive. But you sound almost desperate. Why do you work so hard to defend Kerry? you can admit that he screwed up, unless doing that bothers you. I'm not trying to inflame, I'm just really curious because friends of mine who support Kerry react the same way.

Did YOU support the invasion? Would youhave voted for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. I assure you

The desperation you hear is exasparation at the hard-line rejection and distortions of his motives and rational for his vote.

My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into war. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exagerated the threat from Iraq. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate.

Congress is the lever. The hold the purse strings. But if Bush can disregard their mandate with impunity then what good would holding Congress accountable do? Did the president even read the resolution?
Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

I am defending John Kerry in this because he gave an informed (misinformed) rational for his vote. Maybe I wouldn't have made that vote. I don't know what lies the administration put before the U.N. and Congress. I do know that John Kerry opposed what the president ultimately did, before and after the vote. He didn't hide behind clipped rhetoric. He was effusive in his complaints. He was clear in his opposition to unilateral invasion and occupation.

I was also opposed to the president's actions; before the vote and at the U.N with Powell's phony presentation (I couldn't believe they bought that shit.) I anguished over the vote which threatened to wipe out the Senate Democrats because Bush had taken them to the edge of the mid-term elections.

I listened to the debate. I thought Biden-Lugar and Byrd's outright rejection of Bush's open-ended first draft was superior to the final vote. But I listened to John Kerry's admonitions in his floor speech. He said that he would personally hold the president accountable if he exceeded the restraint implied in the bill.

His presidential bid is a natural extention of his promise. He has been consistent in his aim to remove Saddam with international support. He has deeper knowledge than I as to the true nature of the threat posed. Sen. Kerry is no stranger to the debate over our support of Saddam's regime and the corrupting violence proliferated by Hussein. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act supported by Clinton which called for regime change. He has been consistent in his concern for the secirity of the region and for the potential transfer of bio or chem weapons by an unchecked Iraq. His IWR vote was an extention of that concern.

Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconcieved invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check.

Congress doesn't seem to have the will to collectively stop this war, even in the face of the evidence that Bush inflated the threat. Two massive funding bills have ratified our mostly unilateral occupation there. I must note that my candidate voted against the $87 billion.

I think this fish rots at the head. Bush must go. John Kerry is consistent in seeking the presidency to ensure that the will of Congress, the American people, and the concerns of the international community are not disregarded in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #54
112. from your homepage
A Message for John Kerry & John Edwards

Prayers & Poems section:

I am of the nature to grow old.
There is no way to escape growing old.
I am of the nature to have ill-health.
There is no way to escape having ill-health.
I am of the nature to die.
There is no way to escape death.
All that is dear to me and everyone I love
are of the nature to change.
There is no way to escape being separated from
them.
My actions are my only true belongings.
I cannot escape the consequences of my actions.
My actions are the ground on which I stand.
~Buddha~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #112
117. Wow, someone actually visited my web site!
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 12:31 PM by bigtree
Well, thank you for your interest. I happen to agree with the actions of the Senator. I think that he stands firmly behind those actions.

Here's my reflection fron the Prayers and Poems page:

Move beyond any attachment to
names.
Every war and every conflict between
human beings
has happened because of some
disagreement about names.
It's such an unnecessary foolishness,
because just beyond the arguing
there's a long table of companionship,
set and waiting for us to sit down.
What is praised is one, so the praise is
one too,
many jugs being poured into a huge
basin.
All religions, all this singing, one song.
The differences are just illusion and
vanity.
Sunlight looks slightly different on this
wall than it does on that wall.
and a lot different on this other one,
but it is still one light.
We have borrowed these clothes,
these time-and-space personalities,
from a light,
and when we praise,
we pour them back in.
~Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi - 13th century~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Beautiful
I like your selection.

Thanks to all for offering explanations. I have a better understanding of the why, but in the end it still boils down to being inexcusable to me. We can understand and still not agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. :)
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #117
130. Rumi rocks
He's one of my favorite poets, and a Sufi mystic as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
55. 2 Iraq votes
Kerry was wrong on both. K :spank: Rove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
59. Bush should get some of the blame don't you think?
Dems sold their soul for the election and that is sad but we need to focus on the real goal here. Uniting the party, reaching out to greens and other candidate backers, and removing Bush from office. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
62. What you are suggesting is handing the presidency to Bush again
Edited on Fri Feb-06-04 06:47 AM by wyldwolf
Because the frontrunner doesn't meet your idealogical purity.

I hope you do "do everything in (your) power to see that these two are not the Democratic nominee." You'll be one of the biggest whiners in November '04.

With "dems" like you, who needs the enemy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. Hand it to Bush "again"?
Who handed the 2000 election to Bush? It sure wasn't us regular Dems who voted for Gore. It was the Supreme Court and Congress (including Gore and Kerry and Edwards, I presume) that handed it to him the first time. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus were the only Dems in Congress with the courage to protest what happened in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #70
82. Yeah, "again"
Without going into how I feel about the Green vote, the election was handed to Bush, and will be again if enough people feel as the thread starter feels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
71. The cries of the 500 soliders who have died in vain have been muffled
by chants of ABB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
92. Who killed them?
n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
73. Excellent point. They are making the same argument as
bush*. Dean said the other day that millions of people knew that the war was wrong, and the power to prevent it was in the hands of Congress. But instead, most of them rolled over for King George. Kerry gives bush* the vote he wanted, but also makes a Cover-My-Ass speech in case the war went bad. He and the others are as accountable as bush*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. i agree i am not giving kerry or edwards a pass for not having a spine
because kucinich saw through the bs and had a spine when it mattered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
75. So who was it that declared war?
And what branch of government holds the power to declare war???


Regardless of its wording or the steps Bush was suppose to take after it passed, should IWR have existed in the first place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
78. Good post, and I would like to make one more disturbing point
A senator's job, his sworn constitutional duty is to represent the views of their constituents. They aren't to insert their own views or biases, they are to advocate their constituent's views. This is the basis of how a democratic republic works.
That said, it was apparent AT THE TIME the none of the Congressmen who voted for the IWR were doing their job. The phone calls, faxes, e-mails were running aprox. 280 to 1 against the IWR. Several prominent polls were running solid majorities(in the sixties at least) against a unilateral war, against a preemptive war, and for letting the inspectors complete their job. And yet every Congressman(with a few exceptions) failed to do their job, electing instead to ignore the will of the people and vote in support of the IWR.

And if Kerry and Edwards do this once, then they are bound to do it again and again, ignoring the will of the people on matter large and small. Is that the kind of President we want? Don't we suffer enough already from the indifference of our government? Can we really trust anyone who demonstrably fails to uphold his sworn duty? Should we really trust them, given the gravity of our current situation both at home and abroad?

I think not. For if you give Kerry and Edwards a pass on this large of a matter, then it will be taken by them as a carte blanche to do any damn thing they please, regardless of the will of the people, their sworn duty be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgetrimmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. The Democratic Republic actually is when the person takes office
he/she has supreme power and if that person does not act upon the position of his/her constituency then that person can be ousted from ofice at the end of his/her elected tenure. Or if the person acts unconstitutionally can be ousted from office in several ways.

I do agree that the actions of the said Senators does not represent the constituency and there-for neither should get a further power center (because they do not represent the will of the people). They need to be debunked of any power, for the debunking is the power of the people... where-in lies all power of any Democratic Republic, with the people and their power to vote.

Further, voting is another issue... mostly the people need to reconize their power and act upon it, the government is not the government... the government is MY government and what it does represents me... if it does not represent me then i need to make it represent me... every citizen of this nation needs to realize this, we have the power of this government and we need to make the government represent us.

Thank you. Many blessings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #78
97. My faxes and calls to Schumer & Clinton
"A senator's job, his sworn constitutional duty is to represent the views of their constituents. They aren't to insert their own views or biases, they are to advocate their constituent's views. This is the basis of how a democratic republic works."

That's exactly what I expressed to them before the vote. The person who answered Senator Clinton's phone acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of calls were against the Resolution. She and Senator Schumer did not represent their NY constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. The worst thing is that they have given bush* cover for
all the stuff that's starting to come down on him now. If Kerry wins the nomination, bush* will just say, hey John, we were both fooled by bad intelligence. We'll have our commission look into it so it doesn't happen to us again.

A Kerry nomination will get bush* off the hook for Iraq. Kerry stumbled for months looking for a way to explain his vote. The way things are heading for bush* on Iraq, Dean would be able to pound him relentlessly on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgpenn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
84. I wouldn't say "directly responsible" but indirectly yes.
And for these 2 guys to say and do anything to rewrite history should tell everyone what they are made of.

The media is trying to narrow our choice down between these two birds and blackball others from tv coverage. I say if you support anyone of these 2 guys live with yourself as i will live with myself knowing i didn't help continue more of the same Washington insider crimnal acts that have taken place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zoeyfong Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
85. Right, we're just supposed to overlook it in order to win.
If that's what it takes, who needs it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
88. "I've Said It Both Ways"
The New York Times, Sept. 19, 2003: "Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq. . . . 'At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question,' General Clark said. A moment later, he said: 'I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.'"

http://deanocratsaz.com/deanspace/node/view/5261
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gate of the sun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
89. It's not as of Kerry and Edwards
are really even standing up now. Are they saying the war in Iraq was wrong? Are they saying they made a mistake? Have they promised the American people they will pull out asap? No they haven't.

I am really disappointed in how the "anyone but Bush "is being played out. I am really angry.This kind of of strategy is based on fear, nothing else. we are so afraid that we are going to vote into office someone who wasn't representative of us . Who didn't listen to the American people. How is it that so many of us around the country and around the world knew this invasion of Iraq was wrong and our own future candidates did not?

Now everyone wants to pretend it's nothing that they voted to allow bush to invade Iraq and not only Iraq but anyone else he viewed as an imminent threat. They also want to pretend that they were lied to that it's Bush's fault. Why is it then that Senator Byrd set there for hours mostly alone with the constitution in his hand begging them not to do it? Answer that? Why was it that Kucinich was able to rally other congressman around him to deny bush this vote and still Kerry and Edwards were deceived. Are they dense or something? You can all argue all you want for anyone but bush and how Kerry and Edwards were deceived but you won't convince me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. Edwards and Kerry are a whole helluva lot more
representational to me than Spaceshrub.

If you want to vote for * fine, but I'll take a strong democrat thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gate of the sun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #94
125. So if you don't support Kerry and Edwards
that means I'm going to vote for Bush? Real intelligent reply to what I said. I'd like to hear your arguements for what makes a "strong democrat" does that just mean they are "winning" or they are representative of a "strong democrat"? If so how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
91. I totally agree with your post and I am not supporting either of them
I was against this war the moment I heard Bush* speak about it. I never believed any of Bush*s words on the subject. I did not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I formed this opinion entirely on my own.

Then I heard Al Gore and former President Jimmy Carter condemn the war. I knew when I heard them speak I had formed the correct opinion. I also totally agreed with Senator Byrd.

I hold everyone accountable who supported this resolution and I will never support any of them in seeking an elective office. Some issues rise above political debate. Supporting and/or condoning an illegal, immoral war is one of those things. I am not willing to overlook their support for mere political purposes.

So I don't understand why Dems are willing to overlook this issue in order to achieve a political win. What will they win -- more of the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
95. I agree.
I really do feel that if we nominate Kerry we will regret it. More and more soldiers will die and we will be wishing we had someone to push the issue for REAL. We will have missed the opportunity to send a candidate who will bring the outrage to the frontline. We will lose more than the election, we will lose our chance to bring the troops home sooner. Iraqi people are not just going to start saying they like our occupation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
98. No one has disputed this one either
The justification that Kerry & Edwards put forth on their IWR vote contains a "fatal" flaw:

Kerry & Edwards say they voted for IWR because they were "lead to believe" that Iraq was an imminent threat. They had to protect us. Then why didn't Kerry & Edwards and the rest of "them" call for a North Korea War Resolution(for example)? I believe Noth Korea's leader actually verbally threatened the US, something Saddam did not do. Wouldn't North Korea, known to have nuclear capabilities, and part of the Axis of Evil, be considered an imminent threat warranting immediate action to protect the US? But no, that would not happen because we all KNOW North Korea has nuclear capabilities and we would not attack them for that very reason. We attacked Iraq because... well because we "safely" could, plain and simple. I firmly believe Kerry & Edwards voted in favor of the IWR purely for political reasons. The only other explanation is that they were too ignorant or foolish to figure this farce out. Either way, that's NOT indicative of Presidential material.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #98
102. Um, Actually Kerry Was Extremely Clear That There Was No Imminent Threat
"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent.

None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. Thanks for the correction
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 01:44 AM by For PaisAn
Actually that makes his vote even more inexcusable. So, believeing there was no imminent threat he still voted in favor of IWR. That just strengthens my arguement. If he voted in favor of IWR with no belief of imminent threat, then why wouldn't he call for a North Korea Resolution, where the threat is real and could easily be considered imminent? Still no answer to my question.

Kerry: "The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption."

Gee, the first sentence sure sounds preemptive to me. Well, actually the correct word would be a "preventive" doctrine. So it reads that Kerry supported what he believed to be a preventive doctrine. What a great policy for him to support!

"Minority Report" for foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
106. Yes, shame on them, verily.
But shame also on anyone who doesn't vote for the dem nominee. This is electoral politics after all.

That is a very disturbing section quoted in #8 above, of Edwards talking to Tweety. I knew he voted for IWR, but that quote sounds as if his CURrent view is practically identical to aWol's. Yecchh! And I think Kerry's position(s) is even worse.

It boils down to like this: leading up to Gulf War I, nobody knew how it would turn out. They just knew it was the first big fight since Viet Nam, and there was fear of quagmire and body bags, etc. Most dems in Congress voted against it (including Kerry), and then, surprise, it was quick and successful (almost). (Personally, I supported it.)

Then Gulf War II starts running up the flagpole, and many dems saluted, thinking of the quickie GWI and the coming election. Whoops, it turned out not quick and not successful. Now the saluters must hold that salute, like Leiberman and Edwards, or try to climb down from the flagpole, like Kerry and others.

If I let it, this can disturb me no end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Expediency
is at the root of cynicism. We are always asked to vote for our leaders, and now our nominee, based on understanding that their voting record is based on wet finger raising and that they "had" to do it. Underlying all this is the supposed "wink" when the after the fact explanation is proffered as so many talking points for sympathizers and surrogates to run with. I for one am getting more and more frustrated by the sight of the increasing size and weight of the buckets being asked to carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
108. I support Kerry but DO NOT give him a pass on IWR...
I sympathize with him and the millions of Americans who supported to the war because they were lied to by the Bush administration because I was one of them. However, I think that Kerry being a senator with so much experience should know better than to trust the Bush administration. But I do believe that Kerry did not vote for the resolution to intentionally spend our men and women in uniform to die for no reason. I just can't see somebody who fought in Vietnam and knows the horrors of war doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmags Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
109. There is no rebuttal to your argument
As a Kerry supporter, I can say that his IWR vote was one of the worst decisions he has made in his entire career in the Senate.

The fact is, we all knew the Bush admin would use the IWR for war.

As the pop was about 70-30 pro-war, he made a vote with an eye on the Whitehouse, and it backfired. However, I think his struggles in the primaries up until Iowa have taught him something about that vote. I am positive that Kerry will not repeat that mistake ever again.

Kerry has consistently proven over his career that his beliefs, and his votes, are in line with my own. I think we all know, had he been in office, we wouldn't be in Iraq now.

Bottom line, if the Democratic candidate were to be decided purely on their IWR position, he would not be where he is today. While that vote is significant, there is much more involved in choosing the perfect candidate than that. And when I take a look at the complete positions, backgrounds, traits, etc of all the candidates, I still think Kerry is the most qualified, and would do the best job for us in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
113. You seem to be forgetting a critical point
Kerry and Edwards, as Senators, had access to information we don't have access to. Now, some of that intelligence may have been 'sexed up', as the British term it, but we don't know that yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
114.  you have an odd attitude, considering your screen name
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
115. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
118. It can't be disputed.
Bush claims he was misled. So do they. We nominate one of them, we lose out on the war, and everyone is forced to choose between this candidate who fell for the hype and started the illegal unjusified war, and that other candidate who also fell for the hype and helped to start the illegal unjustified war.

We just better hope people are still focused on jobs. No, wait. There's that NAFTA / WTO thing. There again, we're forced to choose between this candidate who supports allowing multinational corporations to dictate trade policy, and that other candidate who also supports allowing multinational corporations to dictate trade policy, except he's going to ... what? bribe them? The laws of NAFTA and the WTO are not set by Congress and our President. Those amendments have to be voted on by a tribunal. In other words, if they tell you they will change this or change that about NAFTA, they're lying to you. Only by pulling out of these agreements and the WTO can we hope for any change.

Some information on how this works:

Government, Political Influence, and Wealth
Technology and the Uncertain Foundations of Anglo-American Wealth

Excerpted from the book "Wealth and Democracy, a political history of the American rich" by Kevin Phillips.

(snip)
However, new transnational enforcement procedures helped to explain why the World Trade Organization was superseding the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. NAFTA, too, had a section that established a system of arbitration under which investors from one of the other two nations could bring claims against the U.S., Canadian, or Mexican governments. Investors were allowed to demand compensation should the profit-making potential of a venture be injured by national, state, or local government decisions. The broader WTO, in standards for members that former director-general Renato Ruggiero called "a new constitution for a single global economy," permitted governments to bring actions against other nations before special WTO tribunals for interfering with the flow of goods and capital.

Several decisions by these three-member panels-routinely operating behind closed doors and generally staffed by former government or corporate trade officials-illustrated the transfer of power. One ruling against the United States required amendment of the Clean Air Act to permit the entry of Venezuelan gasoline that did not meet federal standards. Thailand, for its part, was told to give up manufacturing a cheap AIDS drug after the U.S. threatened a WTO suit on behalf of an American pharmaceutical firm. Critics in the U.S. Congress pointed to the large potential for WTO panels to overturn state and local laws in the United States. Each year, they said, Japan, the European Union, and Canada publish lists of American laws that each considers WTO-illegal. In 1999, according to the Georgetown University Law Center, ninety-five such laws were tentatively identified in California alone.

In terms of procedure, no appeals to other bodies were allowed from tribunal decisions based on criteria that free trade, economic growth, and enhanced financial returns outranked different local values. This fueled critics. Journalist William Greider, a latter-day muckraker, charged that, "The WTO aspires, in effect, to create a Bill of Rights for capital, crafted one case at a time by the corporate lawyers filing their confidential pleadings in Geneva. It is not hyperbole when critics say the system defines property rights and common social concerns as irrelevant to trade."

To the AFL-CIO, the rules of the new global economy were being "created by government muscle, wielded behind closed doors, largely on behalf of the most powerful corporate and financial interests." Democratic U.S. senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, who became chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee in 2001, charged that "the WTO puts our social contract in jeopardy; its one-size-fits-all capitalism threatens to destroy America's standard of living."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalProf Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #118
124. You're missing a critical difference
"Bush claims he was misled. So do they. We nominate one of them, we lose out on the war, and everyone is forced to choose between this candidate who fell for the hype and started the illegal unjusified war, and that other candidate who also fell for the hype and helped to start the illegal unjustified war."

Bush is supposed to be "the leader." That's that whole President thing. The buck stops with him. So if he wants to campaign on being misled by his own Administration, he's welcome to do so. He'll lose in a landslide.

Edwards and Kerry, on the other hand, don't control the intelligence community. It's easy to imagine them getting hornswoggled by Colin Powell et al. They weren't in the White House. "The leader" was, and he misled them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. I see your point, of course
I just don't know if most average Americans will get that distinction. The difference is more 'nuanced'. It's true that he's the leader, but they're trying to become the leader, so they had better be very clear about how much differently they'd have handled it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frustrated_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
121. Funny how they waffle
around, they swish and swing, but never touch the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upfront Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
122. Amen!
Well said brother. Wake up sheap!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
126. True, dat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-04 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
131. I agree 100%!
You've said it better than I could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC