Does it strike anyone but me as counterproductive that there are 6 threads on the IWR

[karynnj]

on page 1 of this forum. The IWR was voted on in October 2002. It has been discussed intensively - and occasionally informatively millions of times.

With the Democrats on the verge of taking over both houses and a huge amount of real work to do. Is there any limit to the fussing and fighting some people feelthe ned to engage in?

[AtomicKitten]

1. not any stranger than the usual six threads about this candidate or that

Quite frankly, the Iraq war is an important discussion, how we got there, etc., and it seems those not really wanting to talk about it are those whose candidates of choice voted yes on the IWR, which would be fine if they didn't try so hard to marginalize those that are not okay with that vote, but I digress. It's a discussion that must precede 2008 which is definitely on the minds of many here now that politicians are declaring their candidacy.

[karynnj]

3. Maybe that's why Senator Kerry wanted

Part 2 of the WMD investigation on the manipulation of the intelligence completed and why he was one of few Senators to speak of the Downing Street Memos.

I know you prefer to blame the Democrats, but I was brought up to blame the liar - not the one who trusted the liar.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I was brought up to hold my representatives accountable.

And whoever trusted the liar has demonstrated poor judgment and in the opinion of some that disqualifies them from leading this country.

I know you prefer to let things slide for some Democrats, but I was brought up to not hold politicians in such lofty regard that I would be willing to overlook lack of sound judgment.

[Nikefutbol254]

14. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always thought

that the Iraq "War" is much less an actually war then it is a massacre. I mean Iraq never actually did anything to us. They never had any weapons. They were never a real threat. And damn would it ever be hypocritical to say we went in there to prevent Saddam Hussein from killing more innocent people. I mean honestly Saddam Hussein was probably the best thing available for that country. I mean its fairly obvious that he could keep it together than we can. I mean the man ruled that country for what.. around 50 years... he managed to keep it from breaking out into civil war fairly well. Now look at Bush. He has around 150,000 troops deployed over there and in three or four years, POOF! the country just dissolves.

The ensuing "war" in Iraq seems much more like some stupid little kid decided to go stick his foot in this huge ant hill thinking he could tame all the ants...

Someone needs to tell Bush it doesn't work that way.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Everyone is human

some people are more insightful than others. i don't think it is wrong to make a mistake and then, say so. It's a sign of growth. Hillary is one who still sticks with it but, the others are regretful.
I don't think it's a reason to hold it against someone.
No one seems to concider that at the time, anyone who did not support shrub and back him 100% was branded a traitor and a terrorist. It was scary. People felt scared to speak out. People's lives were ruined and careers ended because of this. I don't blame anyone for going along.
I am lucky that both my senators were against it. One voted against it and the other spoke out against it but wasn't in the senate at the time to vote.
However, I do take into concideration the McCarthy like mood in Washington at the time. It not good to trash those who did a vote for the war. Many were afraid and that is a human emotion. Nobody is perfect.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. So glad MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, Rosa Parks, His Holiness

The Dalai Lama, John Conyers, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, Cindy Sheehan, Betty Ford, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Socrates, Richard Clarke, Albert Einstein and Riverbend were not afraid to be branded traitors and spoke up when needed in the face of Death or just being called the name of traitor. I'll stick with the crowd that speaks up when others abdicate their convictions.

[Porcupine]

7. You tell 'em. We knew the war was a scam in 2001.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans marched against the war in 2001. By the time the war reached Iraq in 2003 millions of Americans had marched against the war.

All of the evidence that we have now about how there were no WMD's was there on Jan. 1st 2003. with the exception of the final inspection of every bit or Iraq. It was clear that Bush was lieing. The US invaded Iraq to steal the oil. Some Democratic elected officials were willing to pretend that was not the case in order to slide along politically.

Any Democrat who voted for the Iraq War Resolution will be destroyed by the Bush political machine in 2008. The American people hate the war and they know it; they will use that to hammer us as weasels if we run somebody who flops on this.

We shouldn't even consider voting for somebody with that record in the primaries. I know that leaves us with a short list of people with integrity but TOUGH SHIT!!! I'm not voting for a DINO in '08.

[karynnj]

8. You marched against the war in 2001!

That's amazing -

The big marches were in Jan 2003 in DC and February in NYC, SF, Rome and London. (My kids, huband and I went to DC and NYC)

The first public hints were in summer of 2002 when Bush sent more troops to the Gulf. (We were already in Afghanistan.

[Porcupine]

51. Afghanistan was a mistake too....

I consider the whole thing the same war. The PNAC considers the whole thing the same war. The point of all of this was to secure the energy resources of the Middle East and southern states of the FSU.

Google: "natural gas pipeline taliban" for more information than you really want to know.

We will eventually pull out of Afghanistan and leave an Islamist theocratic state behind. The afghans drove the soviets out and they will drive us out also.

[stillcool]

6. I think it's about seperating the wheat from

the shaft. The Cover-Up Wing of the Democratic Party need to be exposed for who they are. Logical explanations are not too much to ask, are they?. The standard line about intelligence never did and still doesn't fly.

[talk hard]

47. right on!

but some of the candidate fans really want us to pretend that they were duped -- which really menas they are 2 dumb to run the country anyway

[DaveinMD]

9. of course

but, people like to be high and mighty and hold things over the heads of others. It really pisses me off.

[talk hard]

10. Maybe you think they are "high and mighty"

cuz you know they are right deep down inside but aren't enough of a solid guy to say so? Ya, I can see how that would piss you off. Ever heard of respecting other opinions? Didn't think so.

[DaveinMD]

15. respecting people's opinions?

like to see a little more of that. Of course those who voted against the war were right on that issue. Doesn't mean they are right about everything. And it doesn't mean those who were wrong are necessarily bad people who are always unworthy of our support.

[renie408]

18. Hey, Dave, where's your sense of humor?

Come on, man, that was nearly the funniest thing I have read all morning.

[talk hard]

42. no it just means they shouldn't lead

bad judgement shoulddn't be rewarded

[DaveinMD]

54. even the best leaders make mistakes

its what they do after the mistakes that define their leadership.

[renie408]

17. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'irony'?? n/t

[talk hard]

43. I understand

that your posts are becoming more and more obnoxious and that "fuck you" button you brag about look pretty damn good in your case

[LittleClarkie]

59. Purity tests make my teeth itch

So does self-righteous santimony.

[talk hard]

63. I'll bet they do.

Also knowing deep down inside the idiots that voted for the IWR are turd candicates for 2008 and you support one of them must make you feel dirty. It's not self righteous to know right from wrong -- its pretty gross that you would ridicule people that hold politicians accountable to cover your favorite guy's butt.

[LittleClarkie]

69. Nah.

Actually the number of people being all santimonious about it is only a subset of those who post threads about IWR as it pertains to 2008. Hence, I'm not ridiculing those who hold politicans accountable. However, those people who hold up the IWR as THE issue to be concerned with in 2008, and then slame those people who diagree as being morally inferior or something rather get my goat.

I'm looking at these people as a whole. The one vote figures in, but isn't the whole enchilada.

[dailykoff]

11. Considering that it was a largely symbolic vote engineered to smear Dems

in the first place, yes, it also strikes me as counterproductive.

[CTLawGuy]

30. A war resolution is hardly "symbolic"

that was Congress doing its duty to "declare" war. The only way Bush could go to war without permission from Congress is illegally.

This was a very important vote.

[dailykoff]

34. It was NOT a declaration of war,

though it's usually spun that way. It gave the President authorization to use force only after exhausting a number of other carefully defined options, which, of course, he failed to pursue at all.

[CTLawGuy]

36. what carefully defined options?

please cut and paste language from the resolution in your answer. Thank you.

To Help you out:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

[dailykoff]

37. It authorized the enforcement of weapons inspections.

I can't believe you didn't know that. If you want language, do a search on DU. It's been discussed in thousands of threads.

[CTLawGuy]

38. show me that in the resolution

my post above has the link.

[dailykoff]

39. "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. . . .

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to. . . . enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
...................
Now what on earth was the point of rehearsing this one more time?

[CTLawGuy]

40. it authorizes force FOR THE PURPOSE of enforcing UN resolutions

the lack of enforcement is not a precondition to Bush having authority to go to war. the only precondition is the president's own determination that war is the only way.

[SOS]

57. UNSC resolution enforcement section is utterly meaningless

You've quoted Section 3-a-1

Continue reading to 3-b-1:

(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

Bush is given the sole authority to determine whether or not peaceful means will protect the US or whether peaceful means are "not likely" to lead to enforcement.

Surprise! Bush determined that peaceful means were not enough.

Byrd was right. Blank check.

[dailykoff]

60. Has Bush supplied such determinations to Congress?

I seem to recall that he hasn't, in which case he's breaking the law Kerry voted for. I suggest we focus on the law breaker, not the law makers.

[tritsofme]

64. Yes.

All he had to do was send a letter to Congress within 48 hours of pulling the trigger saying that he determined:

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

He did basically that and fufilled that portion of the resolution.

This is what was voted for.

[dailykoff]

66. Yes I know what he was required to do,

but has he done it? I remember reading that he hasn't, and I haven't seen any evidence of these letters. Do you have any?

[SOS]

67. Yes

Bush simply did a copy and paste of Sec 3-b:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2003
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker:
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section
3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030321-usia20.htm

[dailykoff]

68. Okay. We have a figleaf pursuant to a figleaf

which brings us back to the original point that the IWR was symbolic: the case was made (yes it was shabby), the intelligence was there to support it (yes it was phony), the war was going to proceed via one channel or another and the IWR was engineered to penalize any Dem who voted against it with the weak-on-defense smear. And there are few Dems besides Kucinich who didn't express approval of the effort to depose Saddam whether they were in a postition to vote on the IWR or not.

[Zodiak]

12. I'd just like to add that we are talking about a war

not what time to have tea on Thursday. It is an ugly truth that a bad, misguided vote to enable a lying idiot to conduct an illegal war that resulted in countless deaths, 1 trillion dollars, and our international reputation is going to have consequences. If anyone skates because they play for "our team", then we are not serving our country appropriately and have become political hacks.

No amount of pleading for the issue to be dropped will stop it until the war itself is ended. Death has a tendency to be ranked high on the priority list, and I consider the debate on this matter to be healthy if we want a party that can stand as an effective opposition.

The only thing that irritates me about this whole debate is those who made a wrong decision still insist they have all of the answers on the next course of action to take, and continue to ignore those that were right all along. Talk about arrogance and a lack on sincerity. If one is wrong about an issue, then it is that person's job to listen to those that were right, not try to take the reigns again.

[Skittles]

13. NO

THAT VOTE WAS A DISASTER AND THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR IT NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. We are talking about WAR, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEAD PEOPLE, PEOPLE DYING EVERY DAY that to this day has NO END IN SIGHT.

[renie408]

16. Not to me, it doesn't.

This is obviously something that strikes a nerve with Democrats. I think that since a good sized chunk of the people running for the nomination in '08 will have likely either voted for the IWR or supported some version of it, it is something that people have to work out for themselves.

[kentuck]

19. No...

And your post is OK also... :)

[zanne]

20. Now there are seven. nt

[Buzz Clik]

21. Is yours Number 6 or Number 7?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Most people are very wrong about it as well.

It was not a vote "for the war", for instance.

[renie408]

25. Don't try your crazy voodoo logic talk here...

We won't have it!!


(How do you do the sarcasm thing?)

[LoZoccolo]

28. WilliamPitt put it well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=605385

[babylonsister]

33. Thanks for digging that up! nt

[SaveElmer]

46. Nice...

And having reviewed the statements of virtually every Democrat that voted for the IWR, the same reasoning is behind the vot.

[welshTerrier2]

26. someone who "voted for the war" disagrees with you

here's the exact quote from the article he wrote: "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

and this: "Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

if the man says he "voted for the war", it's hard to argue he didn't ... isn't it?

need a link? here you go: http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2005/11/002043.html

[renie408]

27. Well, shit. Somebody needs to tell Edwards he isn't helping. n/t

[talk hard]

44. we'll settle this in the primaries

when your dream boy and the rest of the idiots who voted for the IWR go down in flames.

then your smug, rude posts will really be funny --- even funnier then they are now

[LoZoccolo]

49. Who do you think will win? n/t

[talk hard]

52. as far as I'm concerned

anybody that didn't support the war -- who I think will win is wide open at this point but I doin't think retreads from 2004 have a chance -- it's 2 early plus they voted for the war -- I think anyone that was against it from the beginning has the best shot.

[LoZoccolo]

29. No, it means that so many people think it was a vote for the war...

...that he has to pretend it was too.

[renie408]

31. More of that logic!! n/t

[CTLawGuy]

32. shh

don't upset the revisionist historians who forget that it's Congress' duty to decide when we go to war - regardless of whether they decide themselves or cowardly pass that decision on to the president.

[SOS]

56. It was a vote

to give Bush the sole authority to determine when to start the war.

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

"as he determines to be necessary". The only six words in the resolution that matter.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Let me guess which user posted all of them...

On second thought, don't let me guess. That'd be against the rules.

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[renie408]

24. IT WASN'T ME!! I only posted one of them!! n/t

[The Count]

35. Excuse me - is there a war going on? Are we talking candidates? Irrelevant indeed

here's another IWR sponsoring thread one vote away from being on page one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3012797&mesg_id=3012797
I also promise that the moment war supporters stop being worshiped on DU as good candidates I'll stop mentioning IWR.

[talk hard]

45. dude --- dont ya know war is no big whoop for these people ??

[hijinx87]

41. it is being used as a litmus test for 2008 presidential candidates

those that were wrong on the IWR need not apply.

I certainly don't buy into that line of reasoning, but that
is clearly what is happening. I think "single issue politics"
is, by definition, fatally flawed by it's narrowness. no matter
how important the single issue may be.


edit for spelling

[democrank]

48. Geez.........why didn`t I think of this?

No more Iraq War talk. Just zip it up. Even if your son is leaving for his third tour. Even if your friend`s kid just got both his hands blown off. Even if the bill your grandchild will get is growing by the hour. Even if your nephew just got killed. Even if you`re a DU Vet whose PTSD is constantly reactivated.

I`m as active as anyone regarding the "huge amount of real work" we have before us, but I`ll not stop talking about this war until the last soldier is back home where he/she belongs. After that happens, I`ll talk some more about how we got into this horrific mess, hoping that if enough of us continue the dialogue, we may help prevent it from ever happening this way again. As far as the Democratic agenda is concerned, there is NOTHING more important than the Iraq War. It`s a matter of life and death.

[AZBlue]

50. Only 6 today? Must be a slow day because of the holiday.

And, yes, it's a bit of overkill as far as I'm concerned. I think it DEFINITELY needs to be discussed, but let's see who's actually going to be a candidate first before we start attacking and/or defending those who may not even run. I guess that's where I find it to be the biggest waste of time.

[sampsonblk]

53. Its THE litmus test for '08 - and rightfully so!

This issue isn't going away. Talking it to death is probably counterproductive. Probably. To avoid what we agree is a waste of time, I propose all the candidates who voted for the IWR should wear a button that says "I voted for this war, and now I still expect you to trust my honest and judgment." That would make things simple.

[JeremyWestenn]

55. I feel you.

I'm so sick of it. Just so sick of it. It's either that, threads glorifying Edwards or Obama or threads bashing Hillary. We won the House and Senate for Oz sake, you think we could talk about the work that needs to be done! Or that seat in Florida that seems to have been handed to a Republican that didn't win it?

Come on, there has to be something more productive to do.

[xkenx]

58. Hell no! IWR IS one of the most significant issues for '08

We don't need to nominate for president anyone with the missing courage/integrity which permitted him/her to vote for IWR when the information that the intelligence was bogus or weak was known to all congressional Democrats at the time. Since virtually any Rethug nominee will have voted for IWR, or supported Bush all the way, they can throw this at a Dem. who voted for IWR, "You voted for the war, just like me." Why give them this kind of defense? We need all the Independent and moderate Republican votes we can get. Iraq is & will be an albatross around the neck of the Rethugs. We need to clearly differentiate us from them. We have or will have people with strong credentials who were against the Iraq war-- Clark, Gore, Obama to name three. No need to rationalize the ones who were either too dumb or were looking out for their political asses at the time. Plus, why should we think that he/she would not base decisions on a wet political finger in the wind if they were in office? Time for honor, integrity, character in the White House. DO NOT ENABLE THE ENABLERS!

[DrFunkenstein]

70. I'm sorry, but Clark is not among the anti-IWR group

I agree with you that the IWR vote was a tragedy, and - according to GOP plans - it threw the whole primaries into a whirlwind, bringing forward candidates that shouldn't have been there and sidetracking far better candidates for a long time.

As for Clark, I think there are three sentences in the NYTimes that come immediately to mind:

"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://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[xkenx]

71. Dr.F., you lurk on all posts even tangentially related to Clark, and

take his positions out of context. I and others have presented Clark's true positions as being against any blank check IWR many times the past several days, including his own sworn testimony, comments by Ted Kennedy (among others), quoted commentary in any number of interviews and speeches, yet you persist. Okay, you don't like Clark; that's your prerogative, but give it up with the distortions!

[oasis]

61. If Dem Senators recruited consultants from the ranks of DU, how long would they

remain in office?

[Tactical Progressive]

62. That's funny!

Answer: 1 term

Assuming of course that Dem Senate *candidates* don't recruit consultants from the ranks of DU.
Otherwise the answer would be zero terms.

[wisteria]

65. I think it is time to move on. We cannot change the past, but we can

change the future. Those who voted for the IWR and have stated they were wrong would receive as much of my support as someone who never voted for it at all.The argument should now be about coming together to bring our soldiers home and leaving the Iraq's at some point soon, to protect and manage their own country.