Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Where I stand on Iraq (Senator Clinton answers to NY Daily News)

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
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:39 PM
Original message
Where I stand on Iraq (Senator Clinton answers to NY Daily News)
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 05:00 PM by ProSense

Where I stand on Iraq

Sen. Clinton says how Bush went wrong
and offers her prescription for the war


We have to deal with the Iraq we have, not the Iraq we wish we had. And the Iraq we have is a deteriorating, violent conflict that, if not technically a civil war, is about as close as you can get.

snip...

There are three big things that need to happen.

Step 1: The Political Track
First of all, the political process has stalled and gone backward. The government promised that they would deal with the constitutional issues, including the very serious concern about how to allocate oil resources. And they won't do it. They keep punting it.

Snip...

In the last month, I've seen the president of Iraq, I've seen the deputy prime minister of Iraq, I've communicated with our ambassador in Iraq, and I've asked the same question: "When are you going to get the oil deal done?" And I keep being told, "Oh, it's imminent. We have legislation. It's going to happen." Well, the last thing I heard is they're going to punt it for another 18 months. That means it will not end, on the Sunnis' end.

Step 2: Diplomacy
The second thing that needs to happen is an international public gathering of the parties in the region. Right now, we have sort of private conversations with all these different groups, with the exception of Iran and Syria. So we talk to the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Turks but we're not bringing them to any kind of resolution about what they will publicly do and get them on record in a way that we can then bank on.

Snip...

Step 3: Phased redeployment

Snip...

There are certain groups of the Iraqis that will fight, but the vast majority of the 350,000 are not prepared to stand up and fight for Iraq. They might stand up and fight for their tribe or for their family or for their religious affiliation. And that's not going to change unless they have to face the reality that, guess what, we are going to start, what we call, in the Democratic alternative, a phased redeployment.

Now, that doesn't mean initially, out of Iraq. It could be just moving to the North, because I do think we have an extra obligation to the Kurds not to desert them once again. It could certainly mean just over the horizon in Kuwait. But what we've been doing is not working.

Clinton met with the Daily News Editorial Board yesterday. These comments are excerpted from her remarks.

Originally published on October 12, 2006



And that is why they need a timetable!

Sen. Clinton needs to sign on to KERRY-FEINGOLD:

Congress Approves Kerry Legislation Urging Summit of Iraq and Its Neighbors to End Civil War and Build Political Solution

We began an important fight because together we know the time has come for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out. We know it is not enough to argue with details or logistics, with the manner of the conflicts execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to fight to set a date to withdraw American forces.

Thats why this June with Russ Feingold, we fought for an up or down vote on the Kerry-Feingold amendment to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. We made it clear that our soldiers have done their job. It is time for Iraqis to do their job its time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. Its time for Iraqis to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them. Click here to read our plan.

Hundreds of thousands of you in the johnkerry.com community have shown your support for our plan for Iraq. You signed our petition and urged your Senators to stand with us. With your help, we stood up to the Bush Administrations aimless and failed course in Iraq.

On June 22, 2006 the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Thirteen courageous Senators stood with us, and we want to thank them for their leadership:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The fight is not over until we have changed course in Iraq. November 7th will be a day of reckoning for the administrations broken course in Iraq.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
keta11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Go away, Triangulator!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. She has changed her position and she should be encouraged
for doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. She supported the Levin-Reed amendment
for redeployment from Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. The Levin amendment was a policy statement
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 10:59 AM by karynnj
that a deployment should begin in late 2006. It was designed by Levin to be broad enough that nearly all Democrats can vote for it. As a result it is not, nor could it be, a plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. nice rationalization
The Levin-Reed amendement would:

# Begin the "phased redeployment" or pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.

# Require the administration to submit a plan by the end of 2006 for continued phased redeployment beyond 2006.

# Transform the role of troops left in the country to a "limited mission" of training and logistical support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeted counterterrorism operations.


Ned Lamont's statement on the Levin-Reed amendment:

Currently, our troops are stuck in a bloody civil war in Iraq, with no exit strategy. The violence continues unabated and the continued presence of our forces with no sign of a reduction fuels the insurgency and further destabilizes the region. President Bush and his allies believe American troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely - he said that it would be an issue for "future Presidents and future governments of Iraq."

I support the Levin-Reed Amendment on U.S. Policy in Iraq, and I urge Senator Lieberman to do the same.

It represents the minimum needed, but will build a Democratic coalition to establish and stick to a plan to end the war.

The three main provisions of the Amendment - expediting the transition of U.S. forces to a limited mission, a phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and requiring the administration to submit to Congress its plan for continued redeployment beyond 2006 - are all critical to ensuring that the we move forward from our current failed strategy.

This is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the current President and the current government of Iraq. "Stay the course" is not a strategy for any real victory, and it is time that the President and Congress recognize that fact and take the steps needed to ensure true safety and security for the region and for America.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. That doesn't differ from what I said
It is not a specific plan with implementable parts. It is actually very similar to the Levin (or the copycat Warner) resolution in Nov 2005. So, you can extend the time backwards to Nov 2005 for Hillary having this position. (I AGREE WITH YOU THAT HILLARY BEING FOR REDEPLOYMENT IS NOT NEW.)

The 2005 resolutions were important because they pushed for changing the course. They were NON-BINDING Senate resolutions.

Senator Warner in his debate in the Senate made the point that Kerry/Feingold was a bill, that if passed, became law, while the Levin amendment was a non-binding Senate resolution.

I think Lamont went further and backs Kerry/Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. It may be nonbinding, but it IS a plan contrary to what you said.
Imprecise wording renders some assertions false and is often intended to be gratuitously inflammatory which in this case is unnecessary because I certainly agree that the Kerry-Feingold plan was a definitive, far superior plan, but the Levin-Reed plan had a better chance of passing. But, since neither did (Kerry-Feingold defeated 86-13; Levin-Reed defeated 60-39), unfortunately that's just semantics at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. My definition of "plan" may be more precise than yours
It's like saying that the following is a recipe:
- mix flour, butter, sugar, vanilla extract, baking soda, chocolate and milk together to make a cake.

Senator Warner made the same distinction in his debate with Kerry that I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. wink, wink
My definition of plan is a proposed/intended method of getting from one set of circumstances to another. I think the Democrats are flailing about in their current circumstance of impotency throwing out stuff to see what sticks to the wall and, in some cases, to see what lights up their following for cultivation down the road (wink, wink, say no more). None of it matters until Democrats take control of Congress and can put some teeth behind these plans, proposals, or whatever you insist on calling it.

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/nudge.h...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
39. Levin-Reed defeated 60-39),
Apparently it is going to take far more than six seats for Democrats to take Control... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Welcome aboard Senator Clinton.
It is about time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. And THIS is the brilliant policy mind our party leaders will insist
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 04:46 PM by Ken Burch
we are OBLIGATED to nominate next year. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Don't know about that
but every Democratic leader who breaks ranks with the Bush war policy and abandons 'stay the course must succeed' should be welcomed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Hillary is STILL using weasel words and trying to have it both ways.
The woman has got to learn sometime that there isn't a "middle-of-the-road" position on everything, and that, usually, being "middle-of-the-road" means being committed to not doing anything that can actually change anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:43 PM
Original message
Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Looks good. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. U.S. out of Iraq NOW! Not tomorrow, not in the distant future....
We need to get out of Iraq as soon as physically possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well at least she has a plan!!! All Bush has is slogans!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. At least she said something. Each of us can see how far or close
it is to what they believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Well Well
Same day the Iraq working group leaked part of Bakers plan to NYSUN.

Hillary getting herself "on the record".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Democrats have to engage with the TRUTH - Iraq is IN A CIVIL WAR.
You cannot get away with saying that "if not technically a civil war" BS..... the reason is that Bush has no authorization for any mission involved in a civil war, so the TECHNICALITY is of immense import to the debate.

Murtha and Kerry-Feingold were plans dealing with the REALITY that Iraq is NOW in civil war. Hillary can't finesse this - it's TOO crucial a point amnd many are missing that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thats a questions for historians to argue later
The reality is in the statistics, no need to worry about semantics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That's wrong - CIVIL WAR is a THRESHOLD that must exist before mission can
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 09:50 AM by blm
be re-evaluated and revoted on in the senate.

It was part of the Warner-Kerry exchange on the senate floor when they were debating Iraq withdrawal plan.

The mission never COVERED Civil War.

Kerry and Murtha have been adamant that Iraq is in Civil War, and BushInc has been trying to cover it up - Hillary is CAREFULLY siding with Bush still here, but most people won't recognize it because they don't understand the import of the words civil war to the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. So who decides what the threshold
is to call it a civil war? Shall we flip coins?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. That is why the Warner trip to Iraq has been so significant, Jim.
If you can, try and see if you can get the clip from CSpan where they debated it in an old-fashioned style senate debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. The most important snip ... noil sharing at the individual level
<snip>
I recommended in '03 and this went all the way up to Cheney, who shot it down I recommended, while we were in charge, to create an oil trust, where you would basically say to every Iraqi, "You know what, you have a stake in this. And you can get some payment out of the oil revenue."

I thought it would be something that could demonstrate clearly that we were not on the side of the oil companies, we were not on the side of the ruling elites we were on the side of the Iraqi people.
</sniP>

A promise of oil sharing at the individual level not unlike what Chavez has done for Venezuela ... now that's the best idea I have heard. Cudos to Senator Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. Very upsetting development
We could have really used her strong voice when it really mattered. Even after the disaster became apparent, the GOPers and sell-out Dems still successfully used our dissent against us in election 2004. She had to know this invasion was foolish. And for the past few years, she had to know Iraq was getting worse by the day. Instead, she waits till the poll numbers favor it, and jumps in with both feet.

Welcome aboard, but what the hell took you so long???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. And she's barely aboard ..
... even now. Claiming there is no civil war? Bullshit.

Hillary sucks. She's always 2 years behind the power curve (Kerry's only 1 year behind), a leader is at the front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Amen!
I have a hard time supporting anyone who plays that game. If it comes down to it, of course I would vote for Clinton. But just as with Kerry, I won't enjoy it at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
24. Clinton urges change in Bush's Iraq policy
SYRACUSE

Clinton urges change in Bush's Iraq policy

10/13/2006

SYRACUSE (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., on Thursday ratcheted up her calls for the Bush administration to change course in Iraq, saying something must be done "before it's too late."
"I'd like to see them start listening to different voices who might have a couple of good ideas about what should be done over there," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a community center.

Clinton said the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld might solve a lot of problems.

"I'm not going to be an armchair general here," she said. "(But) I believe that if the president were to replace Secretary Rumsfeld, the whole world would breathe a sigh of relief and maybe would start helping us more than they're going to help us if he's the messenger."

Clinton has come under attack from some in her party for voting for the war in 2002 and her opposition to a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
30. So why did she vote for it?
She was told behind closed doors that there were no WMD. And plenty of people told her that invading Iraq was a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. That frame is a distortion DZ
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 08:35 PM by Jim4Wes
IWR is not equal to a Declaration of War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. IWR certainly looked like it would turn out to be a declaration of war!
It was obvious that Bush was chomping at the bit to invade.

If I could figure that out, I think Hillary should have been able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. The only person that declared the war
was Bush and the executive branch. Congress said to him, we want you to speak to the world with once voice but to first try to evforce the resolutions via diplomatic methods. A state of war did not yet exist, and there was a reason for the resolution to recommend diplomacy and require the President to take responsibility for the final decision. When Dems blame the Democrats you essentially remove the responsibility from Bush. If you are saying the Dems that voted aye would have ordered the invasion then at least that is an honest argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. It is a shared failure.
Dems share the blame for giving the idiot an imperfect tool. They were in control of the senate and failed their constituents and the country along with the idiot who needed them to say yes to war first! They let it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Yes it is a declaration.
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 08:45 PM by Pithy Cherub
And if any of them believed that war was inevitable and that their votes were not for the Iraq travesty, then they should have stood up as leaders in 2003 and demanded that it not happen, that Bush overstepped his authority and sought his impeachment. They did not. That shall go with them to their graves along with a complete lack of respect for the politically expedient triangulation crappy way those Dems tried to deal with the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. please see 34.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. No it wasn't!
The Afghanistan resolution was a declaration, Congress agreed:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



The Iraq resolution was a conditional authorization, Congress laid out criteria to be met and required more information:

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.


Bush violated all the conditions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Your revisionism and deep hope that it
wasn't a declaration is in vain. They KNEW what they were doing and went ahead anyway. Your argument is that they were stupid and the language is out there for all to see. They were not stupid - just morally and politically craven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Nonsense! The language is out there and it
Edited on Sat Oct-14-06 11:14 PM by ProSense
doesn't give Bush a green light to go to war! If Bush had a green light to go to war, he would have had no reason to fabricate links to al Qaeda and other evidence after the resolution was signed! He also would have had no need to attach a signing statement to the resolution.

I said nothing about them being stupid, this is your spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Haven't noticed any of those Dems using that lame excuse.
Edited on Sun Oct-15-06 12:45 AM by Pithy Cherub
The Aye on Iraq voters would have stood up and denounced the war and Bush right away oh say in 2003 if your vapor version of events was true. Didn't happen. Now years later you want to wash them up and clean them off from the political cesspool they willfully dived into and skinny dipped in specifically to make that morally repugnant aye vote. Keep trying to clean them off - it is known that the dirt and stench of that Death vote will never come off. They sold out - accept it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Did happen!
Edited on Sun Oct-15-06 01:07 AM by ProSense
Kerry said it before the vote and the war:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi


As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.h...


Many times since:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Maybe it's you who wasn't paying attention!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Kerry was burbling about war so therefore he KNEW it was
Edited on Sun Oct-15-06 01:34 AM by Pithy Cherub
a war declaration. After Bush went to war did Kerry call for Bush's impeachment, no. Did Kerry say this was wrong right away - no. That is the reason he is addressed as The Junior Senator from Mass., and not Mr. President. He was not clear! He finally came out and said it clearly years later - a delayed reaction to wrongdoing by the village idiot occupying the White House. If you know something is totally wrong and people will DIE from your actions, politically brave people call them on it right away. That went over the side in 2004 when the prize was POTENTIAL political stardom as a presidential wannabe. That's why a heavy ABB vote too!

So, you agree it was morally and politically craven to make that IWR aye vote! I paid CLOSE attention. Some senators didn't and voted for the Iraq Debacle with clear minds on being president and not the good of the America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. Sorry those were not blurbs!
Did the no voters call for Bush's impeachment? Kerry is and has been one of the most outspoken against Bush's invasion. This is Bush's criminal action no one else's. You can read Feingold's recent comments:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/ap/politics/m...


Oh, and by the way, ABB is BS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Johnny come lately!
ABB is real much to your dismay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. No matter what you say, it isn't real!
Edited on Sun Oct-15-06 01:52 AM by ProSense
In fact, more Bush voters considered voting for Kerry than Kerry voters did for Bush!

John Kerry is one of the party's strongest leaders. His message is resonating with people across the country and nothing you say will change that. It is the reason posts about him still attract comments like yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. LOL!
You can admire the man all you want. I think Kerry's a great senator and he is where he belongs. ABB more than you will ever appreciate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Admiration has nothing to do with what I posted. It's reality! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. only in your tiny universe... good night!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. When you get a chance, check out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. They knew very well why bush wanted that declaration
Sorry Jim. I knew, and so did many other people. I saw Bill Clinton the night before the vote, and he was talking about bush going to war, not the UN. The Iraqi Reconstruction had been meeting openly in Washington all that summer. Hillary Clinton raised no fuss at the time.

There was a reason 22 Democratic Senators took the chance and voted against the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I guess if your position is (edited)
Edited on Fri Oct-13-06 11:07 PM by Jim4Wes
that despite Bush's speeches to the contrary and despite not knowing: what would transpire in the future with England and other Nations and on the part of Sadaam, and despite having not yet made the full case in front of the American people, despite the fact that Bush 41, James Baker, and Colin Powell were advising against it, despite all that it was a done deal AND all the Senators KNEW THAT AS IF HE HAD TOLD THEM...I mean if that is your position. Then I can't agree but I'll end the discussion now.

edited to add Bush 41 and others advising against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
45. It sounds like what the various Dems are doing is CYA with paper
before they vote to get the hell out of there.

I don't think that anything that we do in Iraq, or any papers that we get the Iraqi government to sign off on, legislation or otherwise, will make any difference once we leave. My guess is that the Iraqis will give us the paper we want when they're ready for us to leave.

Then they will do what they want to do.

Saddam and the Baathists kept a tight lid on this unnaturally formed country. The people who live there will have to figure this out themselves.

And I don't think that many U.S. voters will really care about this if the oil price is reasonable and no Iraqis attack us. I have doubts about the former, and see the latter unlikely.
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 Tue Nov 25th 2014, 06:18 PM
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