Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If only ALL the Democrats had voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.

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
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:31 PM
Original message
If only ALL the Democrats had voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.
Then we wouldn't be in the war now. Right?

Wrong. If the October IWR had failed, Bush would have waited to get his IWR in January, when he had majorities in both houses of Congress.

The IWR that passed in October 2002 -- with the help of some Democratic votes -- was a compromise resolution. In order to get the votes of some Democrats, the Republicans had to agree to include some language in the bill that the Democrats thought -- mistakenly -- would keep Bush from going into Iraq unless WMD were found.

If we had prevented that IWR from passing, the Republican version of the IWR -- that would have passed in January with no help from Democrats -- wouldn't have included that language. It also would have allowed Bush to attack "terrorists" anywhere in the Middle East that he wanted . . . Iran, Syria, wherever he wanted -- without getting further approval.

Would we have been better off if the October IWR had failed -- but the new Republican Congress gave Bush a blank check in January? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. The only good news from it's passage is that we
now know who had enough backbone to vote their conscience!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. So you would have preferred the Republican IWR to pass instead
of this compromise one? The Republican IWR that would have given Bush the authority to attack anywhere in the Middle East?

Because that's what would have happened -- in January 2003, as soon as Bush had his majorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harveyc Donating Member (333 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. In the Senate also, 60 votes? ... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. The original AUMF was a joke,..
--- Even with the "special language," it was still too vague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. I posted this in a thread last week. . .
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 12:56 PM by stellanoir
"So consider setting the "wayyy back" to the IWR (10/02) which is what enabled this unfortunate debacle to transpire in the "flopping" first place.

Some high powered Dems are so often derided for having voted for the IWR. When the idiotic media says, "well they voted for the war. . ." THEY DID NOT.

The specific wording of that resolution was something to the effect of "the Congress authorized the pRes to use force ONLY after gaining UN approval."

Yet, the UN NEVER approved of it. The inspectors were let back in.

Hussein's massive killing days were long over and were mostly conducted when Rummy and the gang were supplying him with $$$, WMD's, and arms. (Yeah, with the glaring exception of the slaughters committed during the Shia uprising that poppy so irresponsibly encouraged in '91.)

But still, Hussein, though unquestionably a tyrant, was purportedly writing romance novels and if memory serves, had written an opera by the time of our ghastly invasion. Go figure. There's no threat more grave than the threat of Weapons of Massively Bad and Tacky Drama. ya know? For this over a million deaths.

Congress essentially was fed bogus intelligence (aka sheer stupidity) from Chalabi (an extortionist) and "Curveball" (huh? that name sounds totally credible/not) and then coerced into deferring to the wisdom of the international community due to the then pending midterms of '02 and with the onus looming of unfairly being tainted as being "weak on terror" or "unpatriotic."

Of course they never should have fallen for it.

I still foolishly think that if the IWR could only be retroactively repealed based on the pres's insensitively idiotic disregard for it's basic and fully ignored stipulation of "with UN Approval," then the massive hemorrhaging of blood and treasure could finally be stopped, That violation alone qualifies as treason to say nothing of the plethora of criminality and thievery that's transpired since then.

Our executive branch of government is comprised of unenlightened and unconscious individuals who don't even qualify as even remotely humane. They misguidedly really think they are above laws long established. They've reigned like a bunch of thugs with presumed impunity.

They've simply no clue about Universal Law and no regard for International law whatsoever.

The new Congress & Senate speak of conducting "investigations" prior to any discussion of impeachment. If you don't think those investigations will be stonewalled as sluggishly as is possible, just consider the nearly 4 grueling years that have passed since Ms. Plame's cover was blown and the multiple ruses and obfuscations of the 9/11 commission.

As far as I'm concerned, impeachment will simply take way too long. * is paid to serve and protect we, the people and our Constitutional rights and has done quite the contrary, and everything but.

A Constitutional crisis is defined as the breakdown of the three branches of government. Well how many blocked investigations and mountains of vetos will it take before our representatives recognize that as of 12/00 we experienced more than a touch of a coup. . .?

With both the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, * violated the parameters clearly set forth by the legislative branch of government. He summarily ignored that caveat and behaved like a bully aggressively playing "Risk" ever since, with utterly disastrous results.

Waiting for and arguing over impeachment will be akin to "Waiting for Godot" and before you know it, it'll be late '08.

If only the pRes (Pinky) & his vice (the Brain) would just resign post haste. Their game of global domination is not only heinously tiresome, it's entirely illegal. Their "vendetta on failure" (aka surge) is just plain nutz.

Blatant fraudulance and fascism has never been remedied by graciousness alone.

Please consider the possibility of an overwhelming movement to relentlessly demand nothing less than their resignations ASAP. Perhaps we can FOCUS on that, first and foremost. "

I'll post a link to that thread in a few. . .here. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=41483

But there was a deep sense back then that nothing would stop them from attempting their ill fated and blundered Neoconic attempt at Imperialistic conquest. At time I said, "they think they're gonna turn Iraq into Switzerland but all they're really gonna do is turn our economy into that of Argentina."

The good news is that they'll be taken down by the very same thing that has undermined every Imperial power throughout recorded history. . .ahhh that would be. . . by their own hubris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Good points, Stellanoir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harveyc Donating Member (333 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:21 PM
Original message
Where does it say that?
--- The specific wording of that resolution was something to the effect of "the Congress authorized the pRes to use force ONLY after gaining UN approval."

Nothing close to that or anything like that ...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. Welp
If memory serves, They got 14:41 and Hussein let the inspectors back in. Then there was a major document dump of data (1000's of pages) released by Iraq in 12/02.

Then Colin Powell did his presentation (now debunked) in front of the UN in early February '03. He failed to win over enough votes of the UN Security Council who felt Hussein had complied so they didn't authorize the use of force.

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

Please don't bust me for using a wikipedia link. It was just something somebody posted on my earlier thread. I'm going mostly on memory here.

Then in March of '03, * gave Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq. That was unprecedented. Those 48 hours didn't even pass before it was "bombs away" and "shock & awe." (They bombed a fancy restaurant where they though Hussein was dining based once again on entirely bogus intelligence.)

One got the impression that there was a rush to war based on the false assumption that we'd be in and out on poppy's timetable and *'s "re-selection" intentions.

Do you remember it differently?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. And neither would the weapons inspections been backed with force...
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 12:57 PM by LoZoccolo
...the way Scott Ritter (anti-war weapons inspector) said they had to be done.

The DU population is largely clueless on the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It seems so.
And yet I keep trying.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. lets assume even then he wouldn't have had the approval of Congress
he would have attacked anyway and then claimed he didnt need their approval because he was the decider..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. yeah, if only
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I'm curious whether you read beyond the title of the post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. we would have been in the exact same situation
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 08:36 PM by darboy
and we might have won 2004, becuase Kerry would not have had his vote hung around his neck and hampering him.

Bush didn't want to attack Syria or Iran, he wanted to attack Iraq, and he got what he wanted.

Funny, I don't remember too many people around here being happy about the IWR back in 2002. Maybe you thought Kennedy and Feingold were wrong to vote against the IWR?
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 Sat May 04th 2024, 04:42 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