I Can't Forgive Them

[cali]

As we move into the 6th year of our National Nightmare of life in the bush era, and the 4th year of a disgraceful war, I can't forgive those Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi War Resolution. It doesn't mean I won't vote for them or praise them when they do something right, but I won't forgive those who stooped to conquer. They stooped for different reasons Some for political expediency, others out of fear. It doesn't really matter.

Here's what I can't forgive: If I knew it was trumped up, they knew or should have known. I knew every time I heard bush propound on the apocalyptic Iraqi WMD scenario that he was plunging us into a needless and terrible war. I knew because, though there should have been more of them, there were plenty of news stories refuting the lies spilling out of the administration. I knew when I saw the embarrassing presentation Colin Powell laid out to the world at the UN: I knew the odds of there being drones ready to fly from Iraq to the US to spray us with poison were about as grave a threat as Saddam programming Grizzly bears to eat us all up. I knew there weren't mobile vans criss crossing Iraq and busily cooking up anthrax. I knew there were no mushroom clouds in the offing except for the ones bush had control of. I knew it was ridiculous because I'm an adult and I can tell the difference between reality and a fairy tale.

I hold them responsible, and I find it reprehensible that they equivocate instead of apologize. When asked if their vote was wrong, they mutter about bad intelligence or the duplicity of bushco.
Not good enough. Not nearly good enough. Those who voted for the obscene resolution that has led to the wanton spilling of blood and the hemorrhaging of treasure should atone. There are no excuses. The passage of time doesn't lessen the gravity of what they did. It increases it.

I hold them responsible.

I don't forgive them.

[ChristianLibrul]

1. forgive?

Why bother? They're a big part of a huge problem. Vote the corporate whores out.

[yurbud]

2. Bob Graham asked obvious question: why would Saddam nuke us?

even if he had what the Bushies said, why would he use it or give it to terrorists to use on us when he knew at best that would serve as a pretext to invade Iraq and at worst, result in his death and Iraq being burned off the map in retaliation.

All these people in Congress are old enough to remember MAD in the Cold War. Therefore, if they voted for the Iraq War Resolution, it was either political cowardice or corruption.

[cali]

3. I'd forgotten that

Graham made such an excellent point.

[yurbud]

11. I wonder if that's why he left Senate.

[blm]

4. The resolution didn't go to war - the resolution would have PREVENTED WAR

if it had been administered by any other president.

Let Bush off the hook - blame the IWR.

[mike_c]

6. so what about the dems who voted against the IWR...?

Were they voting against not going to war?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. That's the problem

They'd hadn't any idea what they were voting for.

[blm]

9. Not the point - they were against it no matter what - does that give Bush

a free pass to violate the guidelines of the IWR?

Every time someone blames the IWR, it perpetuates the lie that Bush had no guidelines whatsoever, and that he HAD to go to war BECAUSE of the IWR, instead of noting that he VIOLATED the IWR to have his war.

[mike_c]

15. Bush didn't "violate the IWR...."

Under the War Powers Resolution congressional "authorization to use force" is sufficient to allow the president to invade. It's the nasty little secret loophole at the heart of the WPR. The IWR provided that cover. Note that Congressional authority to use force has never been withdrawn, as would be the case if the IWR had been "violated." Even if you were correct, congress would still be complicit.

I strongly urge you to read the IWR. You'll find lots of lies in it, but you will not find anything that Bush "violated." Note that Sec. 2 "supports" diplomatic action, but does not require it. The IWR is boilerplate authorization of force under the War Powers Resolution.

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

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

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

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

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

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

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

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

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

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

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

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

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[ProSense]

31. Are you joking? n/t

[mike_c]

32. no-- did you read the IWR...?

It's posted in #15. What part do you think Bush violated?

[ProSense]

33. Bush violated the resolution.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

Did Bush do this?

(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.

Did Bush do this?

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.

Did Bush do these things?

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

Did Bush do this?

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Was Iraq involved in 9/11?

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

Did Bush do this?



Hell, he may have even violated the War Powers act which give him the power to go to war without Congress, but specifies that he must report back, that is justify his actions.

Did he?

[mike_c]

38. starting with your first question....

Section 2(1) and Sec. 2(2) express the Congress's SUPPORT for "the efforts by the president." They place no requirements on him for future actions whatsoever. None. Nada. That's your first two queries-- Bush was not required to do anything further.

Section 3(a) is utter boilerplate. It gives the President authority to use military force AT HIS SOLE DISCRETION. So yes, Bush did that. There is no "violation" of the IWR there.

Section 3(b). Yep-- on March 18 he sent congress a brief letter. Here is its text:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Section 3(c)(1) and Sec. 3(c)(2)-- again, these place no requirements on Bush, so the question of whether he did them makes no sense. These sections explicitly state that the IWR constitutes congressional authorization to use military force under the War Powers Resolution-- the abdication of congressional responsibility to declare war. This gave Bush sole authority as military commander in chief under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution (note that the SCOTUS has never ruled on the constitutionality of this).

I believe that addresses all of your questions. Your last statement, about reporting to congress, is dealt with in Sec. 4(b), which allows a "single consolidated report" BUT DOES NOT SPECIFY WHEN IT IS DUE. Presumably, whomever is president at the end of the war against Iraq will be called upon to submit that report. Someday. In any event, Bush did not "violate" the IWR-- the IWR was a blank freaking check and a get-out-of-jail-free-card all rolled into one.

[ProSense]

41. Bush wrote a letter and that's proof he didn't violate the IWR?

Who the hell is gullible? The most glaring breach is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the other is Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This wasn't pick and choose. Congress laid out a full set of criteria, and Bush violated the resolution. You can give Bush free reign, but he didn't have it.

[mike_c]

48. good lord, those words in the IWR are CONGRESS' LIES...

...not Bush's. Bush didn't write the IWR. Congress did.

[ProSense]

53. The onus was on Bush to provide evidence, which he falsified. n/t

[mike_c]

57. where do you see any requirement that he "provide evidence...?"

The IWR does not require any such evidence-- just the opposite, it states explicitly that congress already believes the lies to be truth, and it simply says that Bush has to send a letter to congress announcing his determination. No proof required. Congress even spelled out what he had to say in the letter. Note the the text of that letter is quoted directly from Section 3 of the IWR.

[cali]

62. and just how do you reconcile

all those who voted against the IWR and made cogent arguments about WHY voting for it was dangerous? Read what Byrd and Leahy said.

[ProSense]

67. The IWR was not a declaration of war. Nothing to reconcile. n/t

[mike_c]

69. with all due respect, please refer to the War Powers Resolution of 1973

...under which a congressional authorization to use military force gives the president authority to wage war without a "declaration of war." Section 3 of the IWR provided that authority. Congress is just as responsible for the war against Iraq as the Bush administration.

[ProSense]

71. The IWR did not supersede the WPR, which is an existing law. n/t

[mike_c]

76. the smilie says it all....

:banghead:

[ProSense]

77. Banging your head against the wall, doesn't change the facts. n/t

[cali]

73. Amen.

Take that break mike. You deserve it, and you presented an air tight case. I'm out too. The stubborn refusal, on the part of some, is just too frustrating, and ultimately, silly.

[blm]

46. That letter was an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT where he said he DETERMINED war

was necessary - making that determination after two months of realtime, ontheground intel in Iraq was reporting to Bush the EXACT OPPOSITE determination.

Bush LIED in an official document and that is an impeachable offense.

[mike_c]

51. that might be, but it is NOT a violation of the IWR....

The IWR was Congress bending over and spreading its legs for the Bush administration. There are only two requirements place on him by the IWR, and he met the first with that letter and the "due date" of the second-- the consolidated report-- was not specified.

THIS is why I hold CONGRESS responsible for the abuse that the IWR represents.

[ProSense]

54. Bush lied in the letter, but it's not a violation? n/t

[mike_c]

58. of course not-- Congress simply required a letter....

No proof or evidence was required. Just notification. Period. READ SECTION 3. There is no requirement for any presidential action other a letter, and congress even told him what to say in the letter.

[ProSense]

59. Obviously wrong, because the evidence (falsified) was provided. n/t

[blm]

40. And THEN weapons inspectors, as part of the UN res. referred to in the IWR

went into Iraq and reported for two months that there were no WMDs and Saddam was not in violation of the UN res, so Bush was LYING when he made an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT to congress stating that war was NECESSARY even after the inspections. That was a LIE and the congress should impeach him for that violation.

[mike_c]

47. again, you're mistaken....

Bush did not write the IWR. Congress did. Every lie contained within the IWR was written by its congressional authors, not by Bush. The IWR is a JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE-- it contains its congressional supporters lies.

Your essential point that Bush was lying is correct of course, but the IWR states that congress agreed with him. Besides, the "Whereas..." clauses simply explain congress' rationale for the action it takes in Sections 1-4. There's nothing to violate there because that part of the bill does not require anything of Bush. The only parts that can be "violated" are Sections 1-4, and in truth, Sec. 1 is just the title, Sec. 2 expresses congressional support for previous efforts but requires no new diplomacy, Sec. 3 simply authorizes the use of force under the War Powers Resolution and gives Bush sole discretionary power to use it, but doesn't require anything of him other than a letter to Congress within 48 hrs of his determination to use that authority, which he provided. Section 4 is more WPR boilerplate, but with the added wrinkle that if allows Bush to dodge the 60 day report by offering an alternative "single consolidated report" at some UNSPECIFIED future date.

READ THE SECTIONS. Section 3(b) and Sec. 4 are the only ones that actually call on the president to DO anything other than make war at his discretion.

[blm]

49. I said Bush's LETTER TO CONGRESS was an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT and

he lied that war was necessary based on his determination made AFTER two months of weapons inspections were reporting the EXACT OPPOSITE determination.

Bush LIED in his official letter to congress, as per the IWR guidelines, and lying in an official document is an impeachable offense.

[mike_c]

56. the IWR did not require him to PROVE the necessity of that determination..

It only required a letter stating that he had made it. You see why I'm so angry at congressional dems (and republicans) who went along with it? It was a blank check for a war of aggression.

[blm]

60. He made the determination that war was NECESSARY even after weapons

inspections as per IWR guidelines to follow the UN res. protocol - he lied and did it in an official document. At that time Bush was still basing his reasoning on WMDs and there is plenty of footage to prove it.

[mike_c]

63. hell, Bush lied for two years before invading, but that doesn't...

...violate the IWR. The IWR only required two things of Bush. By now you should know them-- god knows we've been over this enough times. Only one of those things had a "due date." Bush met that requirement by the due date, and HE QUOTED THE IWR ITSELF in doing so. Sure, he lied. So did the IWR. But he met the requirement-- he did not "violate the IWR" as has been claimed repeatedly in this thread.

This is becoming really lame.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Ron]

17. Poor litmus test--a Rove trap

The Democrats who voted againt the IWR were voting against going to war, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all Democrats voting for the IWR supported going to war. Some did and some didn't.

This was a typical Rove trap to split the opposition--not a vote to determine whether we'd go to war.

At the time of the vote, Bush was going around saying that the vote was NOT a vote to go to war, but a vote to show that America stands together. He claimed he would seek a diplomatic solution before going to war.

Sure, Bush was lying, but that doesn't change the fact that the vote was a trap.

We saw how they spun it (unfortunately with the help of many Democrats) when they ran against a candidate who voted yes. They "forgot" all of Bush's comments that it was not a vote to go to war and claimed that Kerry and other Democrats supported them.

If someone who voted no was the nominee, they would have replayed Bush's comments that it was not a vote to go to war. The claim would have been that those who voted No would not support the use of force even if we were proven to be threatened by WMD. Try to run against that post 9/11.

Granted some Democrats voted yes out of support for the war, and I have little sympathy for them. Others, such as John Kerry, made their opposition to the war clear. Kerry realized the political trap, and said that the real choices were yes, but or no, but. I wish he had voted no, but, however I can respect his views in how he voted "no, but."

Kerry made his opposition to going to war clear in his Senate floor statement. He also had articles against going to war published at the time in the New York Times and in Foreign Affairs. He spoke out many times prior to the war against going to war, such as in his speech at Georgetown. When Bush ultimately went to war, Kerry protested by calling for regime change in the United States. When the Downing Street Memos came out proving that Bush was lying about not planning to go to war, Kerry stated his regrets for his vote and was the first member of the Senate to speak out about the Downing Street Memos.

The problem was Bush's dishonesty and decision to go to war, not simply the vote on the IWR. To attack all Democrats who voted yes, even those who opposed going to war, only plays into Bush's hands and divides the anti-war cause.

[cali]

14. That argument which

you've made so often in order to defend Kerry, holds absolutely no water with me. There was no excuse to vote for it, and certainly no excuse to trust bush.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. See, here's the point some people fail to notice,

and that is, if we here on DU knew it was a bullshit idea to invade Iraq and were vehemently against it, if Scott Ritter and the UN Inspectors said there were no WMDs, how come anyone in the House and/or Senate didn't know what we knew?

[cali]

18. Agreed.

That's what I hope my OP conveyed, though to be fair, about half of the dems in Congress did vote against it.

[cmkramer]

20. Easy

The reason why Du'ers opposed this had nothing to do with the merits of the case. They opposed it because it came from this Administration.

Senators and members of Congress who are Democrats have different criteria beyond "I'm just gonna oppose anything Bush does."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. That's not so

I don't know which DUers you were watching, but the ones I saw - and know - were outraged and knowledgeable.

You might try a bit of the latter, by the way. Your comment is so out of line and inaccurate, I'm almost amused.

[cmkramer]

64. You just keep telling yourself that

By the way, I was against the War too -- as I was against the first Gulf War.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement that anti-Bush sentiment had much more to do with why so many DU'ers chose to oppose the War than any of the other reasons.

By the way, I'd say the same things about the Freepers -- they no doubt opposed things that Clinton did only because it was a Democrat doing them.

[mike_c]

30. please READ THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION in #15 above....

DUers and most people of conscience opposed it because virtually every one of the "Whereas..." clauses is a bald faced lie, and because the IWR gave Bush authority under the War Powers Resolution to conduct a war of aggression based on those lies.

[cali]

45. Thanks, Mike

for posting all of this, and for presenting such a cogent argument about the loopholes in the IWR.
The people who are making excuses are going to continue covering their ears and humming loudly. They ignore the evidence. Sad.

[mike_c]

68. thank you for the OP....

I'm gonna do my blood pressure a favor and take a break, I think!

[blm]

39. I don't care who it holds water with - it's the truth and

the truth never changes.

[sendero]

29. You keep saying that..

.. so you are essentially saying that Bush went to war on his own authority, without the consent of the Congress. Ok, fine, now WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Not a damned thing, nothing, nothing at all. That's what they are going to do and that is why I do not accept the bullshit that 1) Dems didn't know what was going to happen when they voted the IWR and 2) they give a crap now that it has happened.

And even though America is READY for an anti-war message, the Dems cannot deliver such a message with any credibility at all. Fence riding has its price.

[blm]

37. Bush went to war AFTER weapons inspections and his letter to Congress

stated that HE made the determination that military action was necessary AFTER the reports, the only CURRENT, realtime intel reported there were no WMDS. Bush's letter to Congress was an official document and it was a LIE.

No Dem president would have taken in 2months of reports from weapons inspectors and their ontheground intel saying there was nothing there and gone to war - not even Reagan.

And YES - the congress should be drawing up impeachment papers based on Bush's violation of the IWR.

[mike_c]

5. I won't forgive them and I WON'T VOTE FOR THEM....

They betrayed their constituents, and they betrayed America. I see their IWR vote as nothing short of treason against the fundamental ideal that America does not start wars of aggression.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. It goes so much further back

Here's where it all started - http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html.

If there is anything that threatens our country, it continues to be the War Powers Act, the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever to corrupt all of Congress.

[Disturbed]

12. Votes against the IWR

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
John Hostettler (R-Indiana)
Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

[mike_c]

19. be careful-- its the War Powers Resolution of 1973....

There is another War Powers Act passed in 1917 that limits "trading with the enemy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[blm]

44. Now on THAT I will completely agree with you.

That act has always been unconstitutional in my book and has muddied all of DC in its wake.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Well said, cali ...

.. and I agree wholeheartedly.

Your argument is extremely well crafted, and the truth behind it is blatantly obvious.

While we were being presented with all of the 'slam-dunk' evidence that allegedly supported this war, why were so many intelligent, well-informed people looking askance at it? Why were we hearing such differing opinions from the UN inspectors, intelligence experts, military advisers, and others who were in a position to know the true facts of the matter?

How is it possible that ordinary American citizens were skeptical of so-called 'intelligence' from people named 'Curveball', and others who had a vested interest in seeing this war come to fruition, while our elected officials swallowed the bait whole without asking what would seem to have been the obvious questions?

Unforgivable? You're damned real it's unforgivable.

[warrior1]

13. k&r

[ProSense]

21. Forgive them? Bush broke the law. Congress did not declare war. n/t

[mike_c]

28. the IWR gave Bush the authority under the War Powers Resolution....

No congressional declaration of war was necessary. One might argue that this is unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS has never ruled on the matter.

[Redstone]

22. WE knew it was wrong. THEY knew it was wrong. And they voted for it.

No forgiveness. No quarter.

Redstone

[cali]

23. And if they didn't know it

was wrong they were guilty of criminal stupidity.

[Redstone]

24. Absolutely.

Redstone

[upi402]

25. DINO's = Republicans n/t

[NNN0LHI]

26. Before making that kind of statement I would need to...

...as they say "walk a mile in the other mans sandals" first.

We don't know the half of what really happened back then. The truth may either make us empathize with our Dem elected officials or it may make us even madder at them. We won't know until we find out the truth.

I can wait.

Don

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. They wanted to go to war

They wanted to watch the smart bombs and they wanted shock and awe. (vile phrase) It was total revenge. No, I'm not saying Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. It didn't matter. The US got sucker punched and people wanted to beat somebody. Afghanistan wasn't enough. They were still angry. We knew we could take him down. Last time, we gave a war and nobody came. It was a joke.

That's why people voted for it. Because of that feeling in themselves, or in their constituents. And the Masters of War rode that sentiment all the way to Baghdad and made millions and millions for themselves while they beggared our treasury.

I know very little about international events, but I know human nature and I knew, at that time, the pulse of these people.

[tabasco]

35. Equivalent to voting to give a madman a loaded gun.

I won't forgive them either, but my true hatred is for the republicans who foisted an unjustified war on us.

[Neil Lisst]

36. Dems let Bush get away with abandoning Osama for Saddam

In 2002, Bush abandoned catching Osama bin Laden and started beating the drums for war against Iraq. By repeatedly linking the name of Saddam Hussein to the prospect of terrorists getting WMD to use in the United States, Bush and company buffaloed enough Americans to make the IWR an issue before the election. Faced with being called the Peace Party, Democrats caved in and supported the IWR. Within 6 months, many would be voicing their regret for voting for it.

[KyuzoGator]

42. I will never forgive the Bush voters. I will remind them until they die.

I fully hold them responsible and will make sure they remember what they wrought.

[Mass]

43. So you dont forgive Murtha? eom

[cali]

50. no I don't forgive

Murtha for his vote. I admire him for what he's doing today. I hold him accountable for what he did yesterday.

[Mass]

55. As you should for each and every congresspeople for each and every

important vote. This is barely the only one that people should have seen coming and that will destroy lives.

[sandnsea]

52. Just like your earlier post

Where you mis-characterized what Joe Biden had to say too. Wonder why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x638503

[cali]

61. I stand by what I wrote

"Biden and Allen are on MTP. Russert asked Biden if he'd been wrong to vote for the IWR. Biden's response? If I'd known how incompetent they'd be.....That's a disgraceful answer. It completely evades the issues of no WMD and the manipulation of intelligence. One of the things that really bugs me about Biden, is that he's not stupid. He is, however, arrogant and in love with the sound of his own voice."

[sandnsea]

66. Stand by your mis-characterization do you?

MR. RUSSERT: Knowing what you know now, that there were not significant levels of weapons of mass destruction, if the vote happened today, would you still vote yes?

SEN. BIDEN: No. Not knowing, knowing what I know how this administration used the power we gave them. Everybody kind of forgets, Tim, the issue was...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you vote no?

SEN. BIDEN: I vote no. The issue was, though, whether or not the status quo—not whether the status quo would remain, which we have inspectors. I mean, excuse me, we continue to contain Saddam. The question was, do we take those shackles off of Saddam, let him roll, or do we give the president the power to demonstrate to the world, where we’re united, to use pressure to bring other folks in to help us put pressure on him? And remember, from the time we gave him the power, we didn’t go to war for another six months. So, it was—I, I think it was mishandled. I didn’t ever think they would be as incompetent as they were. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have voted for it.

[cali]

70. I got it right.

He was evasive. He excuses his vote. He said: " So, it was—I, I think it was mishandled. I didn’t ever think they would be as incompetent as they were. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have voted for it."
He didn't apologize for his vote. Yep, I stand by what I said.

[sandnsea]

72. "I vote no"

It couldn't be clearer. You took one part of the interview and dismissed the rest of it. That's an intentional, underhanded mis-characterization. Just like your OP and many others that you make at DU. That's your choice to make them, and it's my choice to expose them.

[cali]

80. That's your impression and that's all that it is

doesn't mean much to me, and clearly many people here don't agree with you. I'm always amused
however, by people like you who over personalize everything and set themselves up as the arbiters of some ultimate truth known only to them. Pathetic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Forgive them, no. Vote for them, no. Too many needlessly dead people.

[LevelB]

75. I do not post much,

but I am on this board today because of the absolute dismay I felt that day when I saw Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt say they were signing on to this mess.

And I totally agree with the OP. I knew this was a bad idea, and I am an idiot. How in the hell could our Democratic reps NOT know? What the hell were they thinking? And no, this is not about "not liking Bush's policies" - this is about not supporting lunacy.

No free pass on this one.

A still very pissed off -

B.

[bread_and_roses]

78. I'm with you. And I won't vote for them until and unless they recant and

call for immediate withdrawal and reparations to the Iraqi people.

I have always thought the "we didn't know" arguement ludicrous - millions around the globe were in the streets because they knew. Our own Allies wouldn't support us because they knew. So we are to believe that Senators, with their resources, didn't know? Please.

[Lexingtonian]

79. Selfhatred is the worst kind of hatred

because there's no solution until you let go of your ego.

Plenty of average Democrats agreed with going to war. Polling was 70% in favor. Maybe you could spread your hatred around a little bit.

[cali]

81. That's just sanctimonious silliness.

There's no hatred in my OP. I stated that I was willing to vote for and praise those who voted for the IWR when I think they deserve it. Nor does it have anything to do with ego. That's just a straw dog.
As for polling being a decisive factor in something as important as heading into an illegal and disastrous war, now that's just plain wrong.

[ProSense]

83. Did you forgive Kerry when you voted for him? Did you vote for him? n/t

[cali]

84. Yes I voted for him.

No I didn't forgive him for his vote. I expected more from him. I'd long admired Sen. Kerry, but I thougtht he voted for it out of political expediency. That vote ran contrary to his long Senate record and what I believed he stood for. Having said that, I still think he's generally a good guy. I simply don't forgive him for that vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Plenty of average Democrats were fools.