Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

At last, at last someone says it!

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
1gobluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:22 AM
Original message
At last, at last someone says it!
I have been saying forever, whenever people tell me John Kerry, et. al. voted to go to war with Iraq that they didn't; they voted to give the president the authority to go to war. The media seems incapable of making the distinction but finally I'm seeing someone else say it in a Letter to the Editor in Friday's Ann Arbor News:


"No one voted for war, but Bush authorized it

The White House spin is making much of the Democrats who voted for this war and are now claiming we shouldn't have done it.

First of all, no congressional Democrat, or Republican for that matter, voted for this war, nor were they ever given a chance to. What was voted on and approved was authority for the president to use military force in Iraq if he deemed fit, which authority the president himself asked for under the guise of enhancing his credibility in forcing from Iraq the concessions we and the United Nations were asking for. Actual authorization for military action against Iraq, however, came from President George W. Bush and no other."

See full letter at http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/113293141751911.xml?aanews?NELE&coll=2








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. And that's the way all the Dems who did vote for the IWR should
answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1gobluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I wish they would
What are they afraid of?

I think I'm going to have to clip this and keep it in my wallet along with the clipping I now carry that's headlined 'Man Rolls SUV While Trying to Spit."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well, they were afraid of being called "softies"
for years many of them have been trying to convince the party that Dems need to present a strong image on defense.

Now that 2/3s of the nation has soured on this glorious little adventure we are going to be hearing much more of about "I never voted for war."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abluelady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. It never ceases to amaze me
what the republicans see as bad, I see as good. Being a softie on war seems to me the only way anybody should feel about war. If there even needs to be a war, it should be the very last thing anyone should want. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Nature vs Intellectual....
Blue Lady,

I agree with you: my intellectual brain asks, "How can anyone deemed 'antiwar' be turned into something weak and undesirable." Hell, who wants to be teemed "pro-war".

With that, there is an explanation, IMHO. I have this wonderful woman friend who is a staunch feminist (how can any woman not be a feminist?) with a strong social theory brain and the two of us have a long running debate over the natural or instinctive animal brain versus that of the socially constructed intellectual brain. A sort of an on going debate of which came first, the chicken or the egg debate.

I mention this because sadly, men are still too attached to the primitive part of our nature and will need war to define our nature for some time yet to come.

In Philip Gourevitch's book, "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda", he comes across an African pygmy who tells him that what the West doesn't understand is that we, men, are at war with nature. And what I take from this is that the brains of humans, mostly men, are at war with themselves - the primitive part versus the intellectual part and at this time, the primitive part still trumps the intellectual part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abluelady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Just another reason to be glad I'm a Female!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satireV Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. There is no ongoing debate about which came first, the chicken or the egg.
With the discovery of the structure of DNA in the mid 20th century, the answer was clear..... the animal that laid the egg that became a chicken was not a chicken. The egg came first. This is science, not fuzzy headed sophism.


The argument about nature versus nurture ia almost settled now with the Minnesota Study on mono-zygotic twins separated at birth clearly showing nature, not nurture, is largely responsible for individual personality.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Try telling that to a hard headed...
socially learned theory loving feminist........(playful saracasm)....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. Part of me wonders if BushCo framed the resolution this way on purpose
so they could come back and say "Ha! You supported it! You're a flip-flopper!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. I wish a lot of DUers would understand this simple fact. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. that is a good letter, thanks to both of you! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. Sorry. But, I Knew Full Well At The Time That Authority Given To Bush To
wage war was a vote FOR war.

Sorry, but, anyone with half a brain knew full well that Bush was intent on going in. He had moved clearly and deliberately in that direction since the first days of his junta. Why in hell would ANYONE authorize him to do so?

Your distinction is basically meaningless to me.

How about nearly half of the House Dems that voted against the authorization? They clearly knew that Bush should not be granted with such authority. He could not be trusted with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I agree- it's technically true, but who didn't know that the IWR meant
invasion? If I knew it- just some schlub sitting in my house- I find it difficult to belive that these career politicians didn't know it.

It may be a fine counter to Republican rhetoric, but it certainly doesn't inspire any confidence in me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. Exactly the way I feel.
I didn't trust him before the 2000 election. Certainly didn't trust him after the Florida debacle and SC selection. Didn't trust him as they banged the drums for months against Iraq. Why would anyone give him the vote of confidence to use discernment regarding this issue. 125 members of the House knew better. So should have anyone who voted yes on the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. IWR would have prevented war if administered by any other president. This
Edited on Thu Dec-01-05 10:49 AM by blm
president had a complicit media who spun the IWR as if it had no guidelines for him to follow.

The fact is that the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq were reporting the ONLY CURRENT INTELLIGENCE that mattered, yet Bush BYPASSED their real time intel and declared invasion was necessary for US security and did so ON HIS OWN.

Gore would have demanded an IWR to deal with Iraq, but he would have administered its guidelines HONESTLY using the weapons inspectors to gather the information needed to make a decision.

No president, not even Reagan, would have administered the IWR as dishonestly as Bush did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. And Congress Let Him.
Edited on Thu Dec-01-05 11:11 AM by DistressedAmerican
They should have known he would. I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I heard alot of Dems saying Bush rushed to war unnecessarily without
heeding weapons inspectors who were proving that military action was unwarranted.

Too bad the media turned the volume down on those voices and twisted the debate to blame the IWR,itself, as if it contained no guidelines for Bush to administer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bush is the commander, and all decisions go through him
except for when you're looking to assign blame.

Then, don't blame him.

He's only the president, after all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nashyra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Remember what was being saying around here
"They gave him the keys to the car, they did not tell him to go out and crash it"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Then again, its a bad idea to give the keys to an alcoholic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
13. Murtha said yesterday that Congress sent us into war
and Congress needs to get us out. I believe that all of those who voted to give Bush the power should fight to correct their error. Enough of this rhetoric. It is time to act. Murtha has the right idea.

It is time for Congress to do the job right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. You bring up a good point, 1gobluedem,


Resolution text:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1282.html

Bushco is in violation of Sec. 3, (b), (1). Also note that in the Whereas section it refers to those countries that were involved in 9/11. This represents another way that Bushco is in violation of the section referenced above. There are other violations of the Whereas clauses. Basically, Bushco was to exhaust all other remedies before using war powers. They did not ever try to do so. It was a bait & switch. Many Democratic Senatorss did not expect Bushco to just run off blowing up countries in violation of the resolution.

We should deal with the signers of the IWR responsible during the primaries. Personally, I would love to see Sen. Boxer become the senior Senator of my state, and an even more progressive Senator assume DiFi's seat. However, in the general eleaction, it's a Dem ticket all the way and the FULL responsibility of the violation of the IWR rests solely on the shoulders of this President. No mitigation whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
18. Let's be honest here....
I hate to say this, but our Democratic leaders are trying to parse words here. They are trying to craft a reply that let's them have it both ways and this is part of the perception problem of our national party message.

Way back before their votes, the Dem's should have tried very hard to make it known they would authorize the use of force, but to do so would need a final declaration of war.

If only the Dems would understand that one of our biggest problems is the perception of an apparent lacking of backbone.

It all comes down to what the majority of American voters perceives and it seems that the American voters, or at least a majority of them, believe the use of force vote was a vote giving Bush the permission to go to war with Iraq.

(On a side issue - I believe most of the Dem's who authorized Bush to use force did so out of a fear of receiving the same treatment that Max Cleland did in his Georgia re-election battle. And really, does that not show a lack of backbone? )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. As if the stooges didn't know that BushCo was going to war.
Is this a continuation of the "Duh, I'm so stupid I didn't think he was going to use the guns I gave him" defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
21. It's amazing how all repubs think the same
Finally, thanks....nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. Which is why I don't call it a "war".
I originally thought that they did give the president power to start the war. But we know what the Constitution says about that. And without a Constitutional amendment, the president must seek approval from Congress in order to start a war. Period.


Where do we go from here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. All you say is true (as far as it goes). That IS what happened. And if...
the Democrats are smart, that's what they will say.

This slimebag Bushite tactic of blaming THEIR murder of tens of thousands of innocent people, and THEIR torture of prisoners, and THEIR massive thievery on the opposition party whom they bullied without mercy, and deliberately and systematically disempowered in Congress, and slandered as "weak," and kept "national security" secrets from on a massive and unprecedented scale, and lied to, and threatened, and fear-mongered and war-mongered against, and Diebolded out of office, HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED, and stopped cold.

The buck stops THERE--on their desks, on their watch--not mention the bucks they've stuffed into their pockets as war profiteers.

But there is an underlying truth that must also be told--that goes beyond politics and holding these Republican fascists accountable. And it is this: When those Congresspeople--Dem and Repub--voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, they violated their oaths of office, which require that they uphold the Constitution. That resolution was unconstitutional. Senator Byrd said so, but no one listened. The Congress CANNOT give away its power to declare war. Period. So, in truth--if justice could be done--all of them, those who voted to give their war powers away, and the president and his regime who usurped that power--and bullied and threatened and lied to get it--should be impeached.

That is not going to happen, because justice cannot be done in the present circumstances. We are dealing with an opposition party, on the one hand, which is controlled by leaders who are hogtied to big military budgets, who probably DID support Bush's war, in many cases, no matter what they say now. They will never acknowledge the illegality of this war. They just wanted a "better" war--an efficient war, a successful war--in the Middle East. They probably would not have instigated it; but they let Bush do it.

And don't think they will not pursue it, if and when they re-gain power, because they very likely will. We are likely going to see a huge US military presence in the ME for the foreseeable future, possible incursions into other countries, a military Draft, and continued huge military budgets. The main differences will be that the Dems may tax the rich to do it; they may involve more countries and the UN, and will not bludgeon Congress; they will possibly seek genuine democracy in the ME; and they'll have a somewhat better social policy at home. That's our Dem leadership.

And, on the other hand, we have a ruling party who gained power illegitimately, kept power illegitimately, and has proceeded with a fascist agenda on every front, the likes of which we have never before seen in this country.

So we are in dire straits as a nation. And the only hope we have of improvement--or at least a breather from outright fascism--is electing Democrats, if we are able to do so with Bushite voting machine companies controlling our election system (with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code--which the bugger Democrats let them get away with!). We thus need OVERWHELMING votes to overcome election fraud. (Kerry's 4% to 5% margin wasn't good enough. We need more like a 10% margin to win.)

It's a dark picture, I know. But I think it's a pretty realistic one. And the fundamental premise of what has happened cannot really be addressed at the present time--that the Iraq War resolution was illegal, and that Congress does not have the right to give the president preemptive, elective war powers.

IF Congress had not done so, then, when the debate went to the UN, Congress would have been the entity to judge that debate, to evaluate the opposition of major allies and the rest of the world, and to give the UN weapons inspectors a little more time to complete their inspections. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Congress! That was their rightful, constitutional role--to provide that "balance of power" over against the executive's tyrannical impulse (and long term plan!) to go to war without justification.

Now we are AT war--and a colossal disaster it is, with the rightwing mullahs now in charge of TWO countries instead of just one! And the warmongers of both parties are actually pleased with themselves, because they think they've accomplished something--a permanent US military presence where the oil is, and where Israel is--and nifty new powers with which to make war, threaten war, fund war for all their corporate buds, and throw people into prison without charge, and torture them, if they get in our way. (Where are these Dem leaders' statements of outrage at the torture of prisoners? Where are they?! I guarantee you they are going to hold that power in reserve and NOT disavow it.) (--unless Gore runs and wins; he's very opposed to torture.)

Why would I support such Dems? Why would I 'vote' for them (for what it's worth)? 1) Because I have no choice--it's fascists vs. War Democrats (no antiwar candidate will be permitted to reach the White House); and 2) Because I think we can pressure them on election reform, and restore transparent elections--the key to all change.

I think we need to strategize on a basis of truth. I think we should fully support whatever Dem candidate is chosen for us (with maybe one or two exceptions), give them a big grass roots outpouring once again, and get a seat at the table for the majority of Americans, who want peace, and--if they knew about it--would want honest elections.

I'm not saying don't fight for antiwar and election reform candidates in the primaries. Let's do that, by all means, to keep the views of the disenfranchised majority up front. But when they sucker-punch us again with a big military budget, corporate Democrat--or lie to us (as "peace candidate" LBJ did in 1964)--we need to be very smart in how we react, and what we want in exchange for our support. (And, despite Diebold and ES&S, they do need our support. D & E cannot manufacture elections--not yet anyway. They can only tweak the vote--a few percentages here and there--and have to do it under the radar as well--to prevent exposure of their hackable machines.*)


Peace Patriot to the Dems

So, GO TO IT, DEMS! Make Bush, Cheney and their Cartel ACCOUNTABLE. Don't take any more crap from these people. They deserve more than a drubbing. They deserve to be in jail, the lot of them. They should be beaten into the dust, their every lie and every crime exposed, and every penny they've stolen accounted for and retrieved, and every law they've passed rescinded, and every court appointment they've made invalided. We are sick of this junta. They've nearly destroyed our country. And they DID plan and implement the murder of tens of thousands of people, NOT you! You made a big legal and policy mistake--out of fear, out of corruption, or out of sympathy with their geo-political goals--but I know--and I think we all know--that you would never have done what they have done to our country, or to Iraq. And you have a right and a duty to say that!


------------------

*Note: An exception occurred in the recent Ohio initiatives election on--of all things--election reform, which got Diebolded in a whopping 60/40 flip. The 4 election reform initiatives were winning 60/40 in pre-election polls, and ended up with a 60/40 LOSS! Something rotten in the state of Ohio, to be sure. See Bob Koehler's column:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. If there were not substantial US casualties, you wouldn't hear
anything from the Dems (except perhaps a few).

No US casualties in Haiti... are there more than a couple dozen calling for justice for that nation? The return of its elected leader?

No US casualties in Iraq when clinton bombed it, kept in place deadly sanctions...thousands died, and what Democrats called for an end to the madness??

When Indonesia was destroying East Timor... hundreds of thousands of people killed... very few democrats called for an end to military aid to Indonesia...

And i can't even talk here about the deaths of Palestinians... but in that example, there is not even a few Dem officeholders who speak for their rights. (watch this entry be deleted)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. they voted for war, and now they're trying to use weasel language...
...to wiggle out from under their rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
26. But that's hard to explain to a fourth-grader, and that's how smart
the average American is. So don't expect the truth to catch on if it's nuanced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Gave Bush Authority to go to war???
Only someone as stupid as..., well Bush would think Bush should be entrusted with such power.

I think you are splitting hairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. What does that say about our Dem leaders...
who gave such authority to Bush? Or at the least, created the perception of giving Bush the Authority to go to war.

Look at it this way - I bet if the American people were polled tomorrow and asked what that force authority vote meant, the very, largest majority would say that the Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. It's that simple. And this is part of our problem - Dems always want to be the smartest kids in the classroom and end up getting caught with their pants down while trying to explain the subtle nuances of their positions.

The Dems should have made Bush go the "declare war" angle. Not some sanitized "avoid the Max Cleland treatment" process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satireV Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
30. Sen Patty Murray voted against it.
See what she said.

She predicted the war 100% correctly!

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=188920
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
32. Good point. MSM has glossed over the debate following the auth.
The vote to provide the pres authority was sold as improving his position and that of the US in advancing the proposition with the UN, but UN involvement and approval was always contemplated.

Until Bush reneged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-05 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
34. The Democrats handed Shrub a loaded gun...
...but he pulled the trigger.

Still, it doesn't absolve them. More questions should have been asked.
They should have known by Shrub's track record not to trust him implicitly.
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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