Unless we recognize that the IWR vote is wedge issue, we are doomed

[billbuckhead]

We need a candidate that that can first bring everyone in the Democratic tent together on this the best we can before we can even try to bring America together on this issue of the "war on terrorism' and Iraq. I think the Dean camp has done the Democratic party and America a great disservice by using the IWR vote as a litmus test for who is in the "Democratic" wing of the Democratic party and who should be purged.

[clarknyc]

1. I disagree.

Respectfully, of course...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Yes and no

The NO part is because while I am not using the IWR vote as a litmus test but AM using the Rose Garden ceremony as it ( due to the deliberate undermining by Gep, Bayh and Lieberman), the streets were filled with people protesting the start of this war for all reasons proven to be true...the costs, the bloodshed, the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat. People deserve to be represented by their representatives and I am certain many of these candidates followed some poorly worded poll while those who were out in the streets did spend their energy were ignored.

YES, because Dean has parsed and minced his words on the matter and is using this vote (one that he did not have to make himself and we don't know what he would have done were he in their stead) to sully the reputations of some great legislators with what were excellent liberal credentials but for this vote.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. I don't think Dean parsed and minced his words anywhere near what

some of those great legislators parsed and minced theirs trying to defend their votes for the IWR. They have only themselves to blame for their sullied reputations. Byrd chose one way and he became a hero. Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman voted another and they were damned, it happens.
The fact that Dean didn't have to vote on that issue is just the way it is in politics. Senators don't have to do the things governors do either, such as sign unpopular legislation on gay rights issues.

[Bombtrack]

3. right, that's what the right does. It feeds off the Naderite mantra

to say that all but the most left wing democrats "don't stand for anything" and of course you know what they say about the most left wing democrats, before they die anyway.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. No what do they say? O wise one

[pasadenaboy]

4. You think everything the Dean camp does is a disservice

so why would this be any different.

We need leaders that lead. the dems that voted for this war are wrong, and they need to be called out to defend their positions. Worst among them is Kerry, who was for the war, than criticial of the war, and then when Hussein was caught was for the war again.

These other candidates are bitter because they know they are on the wrong side of this issue, and the democratic party primary voters are smart enough to know they are wrong. We are not gullible like the republicans when it comes to wrapping crappy decisions in the flag. It may work in a general election in CT, NC, MO, or MA, but it won't work in a democratic primary, and it shouldn't. These clowns thought they could go along with this stupid, evil decision and coast into the general election. They were wrong. I'm glad these cowards are getting their hats handed to them.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[HFishbine]

67. Let's follow this thinking through a little further

Okee doke. So, Kerry's yes vote was not a vote for the war. Let's accept that premise and jump to February and March of 2003. At this time, Powell was making his infamous presentation to the UN, which started being substantially debunked within days. Marchers took to the streets by the millions in the US. People against the war were being marginalized at every turn and elected leaders who gave credibility to their voices were in short supply.

Kerry now says he thinks the intellegence used to justify the war wass either the greatest intellegence failure or deception he's ever seen. When did Kerry come to this conclusion?

What I really need to read, in order to beleive that there is any credibility to the notion that Kerry really was against the war, are some remarks from Kerry in February or March where he questions the intellegence; where he says a word about the peace protesters having some legitimate arguments; that we shouldn't be going to war. Where are those statements?

I didn't think we should be going to war. I took to the streets in February and March to say so. If Kerry agreed with me, what was he saying while I was marching?

[HFishbine]

88. Anybody? Anybody at all?

Chirp, chirp, chirp....

[IndianaGreen]

92. Chirp, chirp, chirp

I would like to hear an answer to your excellent question, HFishbine, but the only thing I hear are crickets.

[paulk]

95. people hear what they want to hear

and the reason I have not responded to "HFishbine" is because I have that person on ignore.

[HFishbine]

96. Ignore this

made you look. ;)

[IndianaGreen]

98. Aaah, I see... DU's infamous "ignore" function (rant)

While I fully understand why DU decided to put an ignore function on posters and on entire threads, I think that one of the unintended consequences of that was to put us many of us in blissful ignorance.

The entire country is on "ignore"! We put on "ignore" pictures of coffins arriving at Dover AFB. We put on "ignore" pictures of the horribly wounded in our hospitals and in Iraqi hospitals. We put on "ignore" the cries of the families, American and Iraqi, that have lost loved ones in this cruel and unnecessary war.

As an entire society, we have put on "ignore" the legitimate grievances of people around the world that are being victimized by globalization, imperialism, and American hegemony.

I am about to put on "ignore" the "ignore" function that the media wants me to use.

[isbister]

99. Re: Let's follow this thinking through a little further

So, you didn't read the speech.

[HFishbine]

101. What speech?

Could you be a little more obtuse, please?

[isbister]

103. Re: What speech?"

paulk wrote:

If you read the speech Kerry gave at the IWR vote you would know that he did not support the invasion. While I, personally, did not agree with his "yes" vote, to characterize it as "support" for the war, as you,(and the Dean campaign), have done is not just naive - it's a lie.

Then you responded with:

Let's follow this thinking through a little further.

Your comments caused me to believe you have not read the speech; http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

While I have you here, when were you 100% absolutely sure there was not one gram of WMD in Iraq (other than the stuff we brought in, of course)? I was as anti-war as anyone and I wasn't 100% sure until...maybe late spring/early summer.

[HFishbine]

106. Thanks for the reply

But it does not answer the questions I posed in post #67.

[isbister]

112. Re: But it does not answer the questions I posed in post #67.

I think it just might answer some.

Kerry's position hasn't changed, before the vote, during the vote or after the vote. He's taken the position for some time that Saddam was not a person that could be trusted and he should not be left unchecked. Kerry was right, Saddam was not a nice person that could be trusted. The UN needed to be in Iraq to see if they had WMD and to find out what happened to the WMD they said they dumped in the sand.

Kerry's position hasn't changed. He has said all along that the US should only go to war if the threat to our security was imminent. In the speech made in Oct 2002 Kerry said the threat was not imminent. So, Kerry was speaking out against bush's war long before your request of Feb/Mar 2003.

Read any one of his speeches on foreign policy... the guy knows what he's talking about, he's not coached. Only a legitimate threat to the security of the US (and possibly an ongoing genocide) would cause this man to bring this nation to war. He's not a chickenhawk that sends other people's sons and daughters to war, he's been to war and he understands war is to be used only as a last resort.

[HFishbine]

114. I appreciate you taking the time to reply

As I understand it so far, the argument essentially seems to be that Kerry signed the IWR, not because he wanted war, it is said, but because he wanted two things: pressure to get inspectors back in and international support for the military pressence.

Here is where I get lost. Inspectors got in and international support failed to materialize to any meaningful degree. At this point, why wasn't Kerry standing up and saying "no war?" Is there a speech or statement by Kerry once the inspectors were in in which he says, "No need for military action, let the inspectors do their work?"

You see, if Kerry's explainations are to be believed, there should be some record of him calling for Bush to hold off once the inspectors were in. I haven't seen any. Absent such evidence, Kerry's explainations ring a little hollow.

[isbister]

117. Re: No need for military action, let the inspectors do their work?

I believe he was saying this all along when he was telling bush to work with the international community to resolve the situation... war as a last resort... and that we should not go off on our own. I believe he was saying this when he warned bush about moving unilaterally and warned about the damage that would be done if bush didn't honor his word.

I was anti-war. Before I read Kerry's speeches about the matter I was leaning towards believing the media (and others) about Kerry's position. I was leaning towards Dean or Kucinich. After I read Kerry's speech in October 2002 (and his later speech in January 2003 - http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0710.html) I understood his position and although I didn't agree with it 100% I believe the judgement was sound.

I know Kerry and like where he stands on most issues. I looked into Dean and realized he was too far to the right for me. (I also like Kucinich but the people of the United States are not ready for him and the media would never allow him to succeed.)

[HFishbine]

119. And yet

In the weeks before the war, when millions were marching in the streets, when Powell's "evidence" was being debunked, Kerry was quiet. If he really were against the war, why was he silent during this time?

[isbister]

123. Re: ...why was he silent during this time?

March 14, 2003
Remarks at the 2003 California Democratic State Convention
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0314.html

Most of it is about California but a couple of quotes...

"Just look at George Bush's record. On his watch.....

...And we have gone from having the friendship and support of the world after September 11th to seeing our power and our foreign policy become an object of protest and scorn on every continent. A nation with the strongest military on earth should not have - and can no longer afford - the weakest diplomacy in our history.

and Kerry also said:

Energy independence is critical to the long-term national security of the United States. No foreign government can embargo clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will ever have to risk his or her life to protect them.

This past week marked a year and half since the attacks of September 11th. As Americans, we will never forget what happened that day. And as Democrats, we are ready to respond to the challenge. I believe there is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than to defend and protect our country. And I believe despite the hard rhetoric of this Administration, their wrong-headed policies are weakening this nation.

All of us know that just days from now our country may be at war with Iraq. If war comes then we must and will unite behind the brave young Americans who are risking their lives. I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to.

[HFishbine]

125. Exactly

Comments completely void of acknowledging that the threat of force had acheived the objective of getting inspectors in and absolutely nothing calling for Bush not to go to war. He say's he means it when he says that war should only be a last resort and yet no admonition of Bush for pushing for an elective war.

All he manages is a critique of the process, which ironically is contrary to a warning he offers near the end of his speech:

America doesn't need a Democratic Party that says "yes but less" or "yes but slower" to Republican policies that take us backward.

[isbister]

129. Re: Exactly

I believe he had been warning and calling for bush to avoid war months in a number of speeches and warned what would happen if bush went in unilaterally. Kerry was absolutely right.

I gave you that particular speech because you specifically asked what Kerry was saying at the time of war..... that was it.

When I look at a candidate's position I don't just take one speech or one vote I look at the whole position. Kerry's been vocal about his opposition to the war from the beginning and only spoke of war as a last resort

Kerry said:

"The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to.

The guy's not a republican chickenhawk, he means it and his record shows it. He won't back down for a fight but he won't go causing one wither.

The objective was not to just get the inspectors in, it was to have them do their job, too.

[HFishbine]

130. Thanks

for the excahnge. I appreaciate it. I guess we've identified an irreconciable difference. I see Kerry as having capitulated to the Bush war drums, while you... well, I won't put words in your mouth. Apparently you think Kerry stood up for war as a last resort to the best of his ability.

[isbister]

132. Anyone but Bush

He's the one person everyone can agree who pushed, promoted, lied about and executed this war and the war on the American people.

[HFishbine]

133. Absolutely zero

difference of opinion on that one.

[emanymton]

5. At This Point ...

it is the only issue!

The Iraq war defines the political parties for many many people. GOP is for it. The Democrats are against it.

BTW - don't confuse war with defense.

[Brian_Expat]

6. I will not vote for a candidate who supported the IWR. . .

. . . because that IWR has led to senseless deaths, increases in the likelihood of further terror attacks, and could lead to the draft in future years.

[zulchzulu]

10. Would you vote for someone who couldn't vote for IWR but was for it

Dean was for the IWR originally but was unemployed at the time when his vote would have been tabulated.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Kucinich was a member of Congress and he voted against IWR

while the other 4 members of Congress chose to "believe" George W. Bush. That alone is enough to disqualify them for sheer stupidity!

[Brian_Expat]

22. Dean was opposed to the IWR from the beginning

And with Kucinich was one of only two candidates running to initially oppose it (until AS and CMB joined the race).

[zulchzulu]

27. Actually, no he wasn't

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
(Feb. 2003)

- Howard Dean
"On the campaign trail with the un-Bush" by Jake Tapper/Salon

[IndianaGreen]

28. It doesn't matter! What matters is whether one voted for IWR or not!

This is why Dennis Kucinich rocks! This is also why the candidates that did not have a vote in Congress, but spoke against the rush to war, are also okay.

[sandnsea]

39. POLICY is all that matters

That is the only thing that matters when it comes to Iraq.

Do you think inspectors needed to go back into Iraq.

Do you think it could have been done through diplomacy alone.

If diplomacy wouldn't work, what were the alternatives.

Who has the best policies to address the real problems of weapons proliferation and terrorism, with the right balance between security and economic and cultural engagement. And whose policies will Americans trust in order to win the election next year.

THAT is what matters. That is all that matters.

[IndianaGreen]

41. America must disarm itself from its huge WMD stockpile

Non-proliferation is dead in the water all thanks to Bush and IWR. Nukes are the only deterrent to a US invasion that sovereign nations have left. So let Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Cuba get their nukes. It would make an American President think twice before he sends his imperial troops to those countries.

"POLICY is all that matters"

Bullshit! Respect for international law is what matters!

[sandnsea]

50. That's not what I asked

I asked about Iraq, specifically. No answer.

In any event, respecting international law IS about policy. So who came out against Bush's nukes first? Who is calling for us to disarm as much as any other country? Who agrees with every single disarmament bill out there? Who is against missile defense? Who has had these positions for years, not just in an election year? And who says the worst mistake of George Bush was to disregard the international community and pull out of so many treaties with such blatant arrogance?

Sure Kucinich. So if people really want a movement for real change, why aren't they rallying behind him?

And who else has made his views on all of this clear for years?

[mouse7]

57. Kerry is great for talking endlessly and saying nothing

Kerry's policices are nothing but statements with enough loopholes written into the policies that he actually commits to actually doing NOTHING.

[mouse7]

85. Kerry hasn't been a good candidate since the early 90's

You've been pointing toward Kerry's record. Kerry had a great record in the 80s. Unfortunately, that's when Kerry peaked. Kerry has gone downhill ever since. He just hasn't done a whole lot that is worthy of consideration of candidacy since the 80's ended.

Kerry is living off the legacy of the deeds of his youth. Kerry has changed since he was younger, and I don't like what he's become.

[zulchzulu]

87. Back up your claim

Specifics please. Not vague accusations...

[IndianaGreen]

93. The John Kerry that opposed the Vietnam War

would have never voted for the Iraq War Resolution, a resolution that strongly reminded many of us of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave another President a blank check for war.

[iowapeacechief]

134. Sums up why Kerry is my second choice...

...(most days) and Kucinich is first.

[mouse7]

46. Ah, yes he was. No imminent threat.(9/30/2002 Face The Nation)

"...The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=33638

Post #11 has transcripts and links to transcripts

[zulchzulu]

73. Your Dean quote is from 9/30/02, he was for an attack 2/12/03

Which side of Dean's mouth are you listening to?

You quote Dean saying "...if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it." around 9/30/02. He later said he was basically for a unilateral strike like Bush, Gephardt and Lieberman in February 2003.

Admit that Dean is a liar. Only then would I feel you have any credibility.

[mouse7]

77. Link please

I need the link to the whole transcript, not just a sound byte.

[zulchzulu]

89. You'd have to sign on Salon to see full article

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
(Feb. 2003)
- Howard Dean
"On the campaign trail with the un-Bush" by Jake Tapper/Salon

Those are Dean's words. How can you not see that?

[blm]

141. Wrong, Brian...Dean was FOR the Biden-Lugar resolution

which had the same measure that allowed Bush to determine use of force, even if unilateral.

It only required that Bush send a letter stating that determination to the Speaker of the House and pres. pro tem of the Senate. That's TWO people he needed to inform.

Dean has been demagoguing the IWR vote and claimed his position as antiwar and the others who supported the same CRUCIAL use of force measure were labeled prowar.

>>>>>
This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

[mouse7]

45. Kerry was mostly unemployed

Kerry was elected to the Senate, yet missed 60% of his votes.

[lurk_no_more]

51. Saying he wasn't there while maintaining his job status

is not to say he was unemployed. He had a job to return to at his discretion.


” JAFO”

[mouse7]

53. The problem is that Kerry though it was at his discretion

Kerry was elected by the people in his state to vote on legislation in Congress as the representative of his state. They hired Kerry to do their work in DC. Kerry has shown up for work less than 40% of the time for the voters of MA.

Can you think of another job where you would be allowed to pull such ridiculous behavior at work, and be pushing for a promotion on top of it?

[lurk_no_more]

61. I am not disputing the fact that Kerry

may not as you say showed up for voting, my dispute is that this was not the same as being unemployed and was the wrong thing to say just to counter something you took offense at being said about dean.


” JAFO”

[GalleryGod]

69. A Rather Pithy Observation,there , Z2 !?!

:smoke:

[Walt Starr]

15. I'm with ya!

If one of the four candidates who voted to give Bush carte blanche wins the nomination, the party is doomed.

[Brian_Expat]

23. Not "doomed"

Just going into the wilderness for a while.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Actually, Dean has very shrewdly turned the question on its ear

from "support" vs "oppose" the crusade, to whether Dean or bush will do a better job of prosecuting it.

[shivaji]

26. Dean is either very shrewd or...

he is very lucky. For myself, I rather be lucky than good hehe.

[stickdog]

8. Did establishment Democrats really think they could get away with

caving to Bush on Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) wihtout paying any price for their criminal complicity?

All Dean did was listen to us when nobody else would -- when establishment Dems betrayed their consituency out of fear and self-promotion.

Trillion dollar imperialistic invasions and occupations of nonthreatening countries are not wedge issues. They are simply wrong, and we need to take our country back from the power crazed neocons who think otherwise.

[IndianaGreen]

16. They thought we were morons that could be kept in line with ABB

Some issues are indeed black and white, war being one of them as is the death penalty. One is either for one or the other, and there is no in-between.

[emanymton]

35. Here Here ...

you put it quite right!!!

We will prevail.

[sleipnir]

9. Time to recognize that many of the candidates voted for an illegal war

This isn't a "wedge" issue, it's the reality of life here. Some of the people running have voted for the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion and they do not deserve to run as the nominee from our party. Their criminal acts will echo long beyond their failed dreams of the presidency. You sleep with the devil, you pay the price.

[billbuckhead]

13. The vast majority of America is for this stupid war and we will lose the

election over it. Bush will have a draft after he crushes Dean so he can start some new wars and the Dean camp will have the blood on it's hands. Hubris is the ultimate sin.

[IndianaGreen]

17. The vast majority of Germans supported Hitler in 1934

Why should we behave as they did?

[clarknyc]

19. Got numbers for that "vast majority"?

Numbers with a credible link would be preferrable. Thanks.

[pasadenaboy]

24. 44% voted Nazi

a plurality, not a majority.

http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany1.htm

[clarknyc]

34. I was referring to post #13

but that 44% number is interesting nonetheless.

[IndianaGreen]

36. And I was speaking of 1934

Hitler was now Fuhrer, declared dictator by the ever-accommodating Reichstag.

[clarknyc]

75. Okay

Got it.

[pasadenaboy]

21. and none of them will get the nomination

[bearfartinthewoods]

43. not exactly vaste but a clear majority

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 18-21, 2003. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.

"Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supported going to war with Iraq, or for a candidate who opposed going to war with Iraq?" Options rotated

.........Supported Opposed No Difference No Opinion

12/03 ......57............35............. 6............... 2

[mouse7]

44. If all your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you should?

(Gawd, I hated it when my mother used to use that on me all those years ago.... however, it does come in handy)

Also... support for the war is dropping like a rock, and Dumbya really has nothing left to pull out of his Kurdish sleeve to push support back up. It's bad news from Iraq from now till the election.

[tnlefty]

124. The blood, loss of life and limb on both side belongs with Bush*, his PNAC

buddies and those who gave him permission, so to speak. I resent your trying to make Dean responsible for "having blood on his hands". Others had the good sense to know that trusting Bush* would be a huge mistake, and sometimes I feel sorry for Kerry because I do think that this vote has damaged him and I wonder if he had it all to do again would he have voted the same way.

BTW, your wedge issue is my worst nightmare...kids blown apart...you know.

[isbister]

100. Re: Time to recognize that many of the candidates voted for an illegal war

There is only one person running for President that voted for war and that was bush.

The President of the United States can use the military to attack any nation without Congressional approval if he determines the national security of the United States is at risk. You and I may disagree with bush's determination but that is exactly what he did.

Also, as you may remember, most of the Democrats were calling for the matter to come before Congress again before the war but bush and the republican controlled Congress denied this.

[sleipnir]

104. If Congress had never let it get to that point, we wouldn't have a war

They gave him the blank check for war by voting for IWR plain and simple. No spinning of the facts will change the reality that four men who are running for President authorized an illegal war against Iraq. Those who stood by Bush on this issue deserve nothing less than what he will get, walking papers back home after he (and they) are voted out of office. With Dems like those, we don't need Republicans.

Had those Dems not voted for IWR, Bush would have been forced to return to Congress due to a close vote. Insead, he got a plurality of the elected officals and was free to declare war against Iraq.

This wasn't a spending bill, it was a bill for war, and those four damn well knew it. At least Lieberman has the guts to stand by his vote and not try to wish-wash his way out of it, like so many others...

[isbister]

126. Re: If Congress had never let it get to that point

You're assuming that Congress would've or could've stopped bush. The only thing that stopped bush from attacking Iraq and made him go to the UN (Sept 2002 & Nov 2002) and the Congress (Oct 2002) was public opinion. Public opinion at the time was against a unilateral attack, it was for the US going through the UN. Bush waited until public opinion turned to war and then attacked.

No spin, read the resolution (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm) What many Democrats seem to forget is that bush violated the resolution by lying to Congress. No spin, read what bush wrote to hastert as to why he went to war - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd054.108

No spin, Kerry's held the same position all along, read his October 9, 2002 speech and any thereafter.

[IndianaGreen]

11. IWR and the war that followed are the issue that trumps all others!

No bullshit talk about party loyalty and wedge issues can detract from the horrors unleashed by the total capitulation by some Democrats as evidenced by this:

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

Those politicians did not listen to millions of Americans that wanted to prevent the war. Why in the Hell should we support the same politicians that did not care about peace?

[Scott Lee]

18. Amen. This war and the policy that drove it spell disaster.

For me it's issue Numero Uno.

If we don't turn around the Bush* doctrine of forever war and the PNAC plan of militarily attained aquisition, the day will come when the world turns on us. Mark my words.

[zulchzulu]

30. Meanwhile, the war is happening now

Do you think Dean will whisk his magic wand and the war will just go away?

Depending on which side of Dean's mouth you are listening to, he is for putting more troops in or getting the UN in more "after a while".

Since Dean supported the other wars (and initially this one), is that an issue too?

[IndianaGreen]

31. Did you think we were going to go home after a Democrat got elected?

We are going to put pressure on the newly elected Democratic President to do just that: end the war, end the occupation, and repeal PATRIOT Act.

Winning the White House is only the first step in taking our country back, despite what that idiot Terry McCauliffe may think!

[mouse7]

47. Agree, IG

I have one goal for the next Democratic Administration. Re-regulating the media. I've gotten used to having low expectations.

It will take decades to reverse the damage done by Dumbya, but ya' gotta start somewhere.

[Scott Lee]

121. Allow me to correct your information

"he is for putting more troops in or getting the UN in more "after a while"."

Not quite. He wants an international force in there to help, and to do that he has to clean up the mess that Bush made of our international standing in the UN by going to war when they didn't approve. He has more than once specifically called for international troops to take the heat off the US force, so we can bring them home.

Secondly, he goes further by noting that we have to actually clean up the mess we made there. That is the honorable thing to do - pulling out suddenly and completely with no civilian rebuilding effort in Iraq would be just plain shitty.

Since Dean supported the other wars (and initially this one), is that an issue too?

Not for me. I happen to disagree with Governor Dean over the other wars. But the one we are in in Iraq is the most urgent problem, and he is correct on being against it and the way it came down. He is also against the doctrine that led to it, and those are two big reasons right there why I support him.

Dean did not stand shoulder to shoulder with fascists in the Rose Garden with big shit-eating grins on their faces. Remember that, and remember which "democrats" did.

[wtmusic]

20. No kidding

I'm sick of this 'let's all just be one big happy Democratic family' bullshit. Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman--they're traitors. They sold us out, they sold the country out. They are the ones who did their country and their party a disservice.

[sleipnir]

33. Right on!

Sadly, very few on DU share these beliefs, somehow we only seem to come out at night...When it's safe to post opinions that might be contrary to the rest of the safe, controlled Dem. society.

The whole lie of ABB is just another tool to keep the status quo and PNAC moving along. ABB will get us another Bush, not a real fighing Dem, which the *Four For War* don't understand.

It's high time to break out of that mould and move on!

[billbuckhead]

37. Traitors?

John Kerry is a traitor?

[IndianaGreen]

38. Anyone that collaborates with Bush is a traitor

By that account, Zell Miller is most definitely a traitor.

I don't think Kerry is a traitor, but he has innocent blood on his hands by virtue of his vote for war.

Gephardt's appearance on the Rose Garden with Bush could be considered an act of treason.

[mouse7]

48. He voted for IWR. Technically, Kerry's a war criminal.

The war in Iraq was illegal. There were no WoMD. There was no threat from Iraq on US. The war in Iraq was therefore a war of aggression.

According to international law, you can be tried for war crimes for supporting war crimes. Kerry could technically be tried as a war criminal along with all those who voted to allow Dumbya to invade.

[paulk]

68. you think you're going to put a Democrat in the White House

with statements like that?

Save this kind of shit for Bush, please.

You know - I don't know how you expect to win a general election against Republicans when you spend your time time trashing people like John Kerry. Kerry has the most solid liberal, progressive record of ALL the candidates running.

Yet, you call him a criminal. Do you think Kerry's supporters are going to come flocking to your camp now?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

84. Kerry supporters won't be "flocking" to anybody

Truth is a brutal thing. Kerry's support enabled a military invasion that was illegal according to International Law. I don't care if you
"like" hearing it. It's the truth. Kerry can be indicted for war crimes under international law.

I don't worry too much aboout Kerry supporters flocking to anybody. To this point, they have not indicated any interest in teamwork whatsoever. They will sit on the sidelines and snipe at whoever the eventual nominee is.

And my camp is ABB. I have no candidate for people to flock to. See that Wellstone bus? My candidate is gone. I have no dog in this hunt. No biases.

[zulchzulu]

90. Drivel

Kerry's vote in the IWR was for the UN to do its job. This tinfoil hat drivel about how he can be a "war criminal" is beyond the pall.

[paulk]

91. your post supports the premise of this thread

yes, the IWR is a wedge issue. That you would go so far as to call John Kerry a war criminal over the IWR vote shows how deep that wedge has been driven.

As for supporters flocking anywhere - Howard Dean is the only candidate who has insinuated that his followers might not be transferable. So I don't understand where your opinion about Kerry supporters comes from.

And as for your lack of bias - maube you should go back and read some of your posts - you're one of the most biased posters on this board. Not that there's anything wrong with that - just don't claim otherwise.

[isbister]

108. Re He voted for IWR. Technically, Kerry's a war criminal

Never read the IWR huh?

[nomaco-10]

25. It's not a "wedge" issue for me, it is the...

ONE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT issue for me. I can weather economic hardships, hell I've done that half my life, but I cannot and will not sanction the selection of a candidate that voted for this illegal, immoral bloodletting for oil. I stand with those that opposed this sham war like Paul Wellstone, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich to name just a few. None of these men will be our next president, but their courage and conviction will always shine bright no matter who sits in the White House come January 2005.
I used to be ABB, but I can't go that route anymore. Sorry, I just don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling when I'm asked to pledge my loyalty to the nominee whoever it is. After a great deal of soul searching, I came to realize just how strongly I felt about the IWR and will vote or not vote, if you will, my conscience in the next election.

[MercutioATC]

29. The IWR represents the same thing as the Patriot I and Patriot II votes

to me. (at least for Democrats) Are you willing to hang your political career on an issue you don't agree with? Patriot II passed in the Senate with a voice vote...a VOICE vote, for chrissakes. I think it's great that politicians are being taken to task for their votes, especially when those votes benefited them in the short term and they try to spin their position after they've realized the immediate benefits. Is the IWR a huge issue by itself? Yes, but the bigger isue is how some politicians are willing to whore themselves for voter approval. Like him or not (and I don't), Lieberman at least has the guts to stand behind his vote.

[ozone_man]

32. It is a very important issue, wedge or not.

I think most Democrats are against this war and most Americans (~70%) were against it before the war. The task at hand is to educate voters as to the fallacies behind the war, that it was not justified, and probably criminal. The candidates that voted for it should be eliminated from the process, and I think they will be.

There will certainly be a healing stage in the party after the nomination, and I expect the party to adopt an anti-Iraq war stance. If not, I don't see myself voting Democratic.

[Padraig18]

40. Maybe you can forget that 23 brave democratic senators OPPOSED it, ...

... but I can't. WE knew that Saddam was not an imminent threat, and so did those 23 senators who voted against the IWR. I was inclined to support Sen. Kerry until the IWR vote. It is not a 'wedge isuue', as you so peremptorily didmiss it as being, but it was, is and will remains a critical issue to both myself and *the majority of Democratic voters*!

Just because the candidate you happen to support finds himself at odds with his own party's base, bill, is no reason to continue trying to 'nuance' a vote that was CLEARLY wrong.

[MaggieSwanson]

116. ...and do not forget a Congressman from Ohio who

rallied opposition to the illegal and destabilizing Iraq war—from a small group of Congressional dissenters to the nearly 2/3 of House Democrats who ultimately voted against the war resolution.

[bowens43]

42. Speaking the truth has now become a disservice to

the Democratic Party and America.

[Walt Starr]

49. Get in that ABB line over there

No dissent amongst the ranks. Sign your loyalty oath.

/sarcasm

[madfloridian]

109. Yep, sign that oath. If someone tells the truth, attack them.

:evilgrin:

[Cheswick2.0]

52. I think you have it exactly backwards

The IRW was a litmus test long before I knew Dean talked about it. Don't blame Dean for the craven manner in which our senate and congressional democrats have too often caved to right wing legislation.

[mouse7]

55. "craven" Ewwww...

...good word, can I borrow it?

Ah, screw it. I'm stealing it. MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Take it!

:7

[Monte Carlo]

58. Dean's campaign's "Our way or no way" turns me off.

Revolutionaries scare the hell out of me, and I am not interested in any purge of Washington or the Democratic party. Dean's heart is in the right place, but I think he needs to smarten up. Bush and the GOP knows how to deal with anti-war uprisings; they've done it once, they can do it again.

[lurk_no_more]

59. I don't think the IWR vote is a big issue

now or will it be in NOV. While some may not like the way we invaded Iraq, few aren't glad we did, now that Saddam is gone.

Outside of my core group of friends, people I have talked to on both sides of the fence overwhelmingly approve of what we did, and say they feel safer with Saddam gone (of course most of these same people believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11) and those that don't, blame bush, not those that enabled him with the IWR.

So while the IWR may mean alot to some, I don't see it being a big issue in choosing a candidate by the majority of dem voters, it didn't with my choice, then again Clark, like dean wasn't given the opportunity to prove he wouldn't have done the same thing as the others, I personally believe he would have, I also personally believe dean would have if given the chance.

Clark, while stating his opposition to Iraq, has not blasted the IWR issue but laid the blame on bush.

deans focus on the IWR, leaves the door open for all the pre-war semi-endorsements by dean to be used against him along with the appearance that had he had a vote, he more than likely would've voted for the IWR. Thus the impression of hypocrisy and lying.


” JAFO”

[Walt Starr]

60. I guarantee you, there are many on the left who aren't "glad"

we waged an illegal war on a nation that didn't do anything to us in order to liberate oil.

I also guarantee you, nobody who feels this way will vote for anybody who voted in favor of the IWR.

[lurk_no_more]

71. Nowhere did I say

that many weren't glad, or that those same ones will not vote for anyone that voted for the IWR, I'm saying that I don't see it as a yes/no issue and I believe that there are those that oppose the IRW that will still vote for a candidate that supported it because while an issue, it does not over ride the desire to eliminate bush.

As in your case, the IWR is a major issue, but it cannot be the issue to your choice of candidates otherwise you would support Dennis K. simply because only he has shown through all his "actions" (not just words) that only he was against the war from the start.

I don't doubt your assertion that for you the IWR is a major issue, or that you believe dean wouldn't have signed the IWR if given the chance, which is why you chose dean, hell I don't even doubt or mind your NBD claim.

What I do doubt is that the IWR issue is a major deciding factor for candidate choosing or support or that it will be the deciding factor of who gets the nomination or not, let alone the deciding factor on who beats bush from our side. I just don't see it, even here it is not evident by the simple fact that there are supporters of numerous candidates among it's members alone.

Using the war against bush is a must, using IWR to distinguish yourself from your fellow dems not only is divisive but ads fuel for the opposition should the non IWR candidate get the nomination. There are issues enough to separate the candidates other than to play the war issue among ourselves after claiming despicable the GOP plan to do the same.

Voting is a personal choice, as I said, I am not here to try and change minds, this is how I see the IWR issue/non-issue and I will vote accordingly, I would expect no difference from anyone.


” JAFO”

[isbister]

120. Re: I guarantee you, there are many on the left who aren't "glad"

we waged an illegal war on a nation that didn't do anything to us in order to liberate oil.

I also guarantee you, nobody who feels this way will vote for anybody who voted in favor of the IWR.

You loose. I'm so far left my mom (moderate/left leaning Dem) says I hate America. My vote goes to Kerry.

The IWR gave the president authority he already has. He could have attacked Iraq with our without it.

[Turkw]

135. I'm not "glad" but how the vote went will not be a factor in my voting

The person(s) who set the vote up, Bush/Rove is the most important factor in who I will vote for-ABB!

Anything less is a purity test that divides us and makes Bush more likely to be re-elected.

[HFishbine]

63. Since you're sure it's not Dean, who do you recommend? (n/t)

[Padraig18]

65. Hint: His last name starts with a letter found between 'J' and 'L'...

:P

[aquart]

64. If you're asking if I can forgive and forget

that the party I trusted and the representatives I elected sold me down the river on the war vote, no, I can't. Not in the primary, sorry.

No elected official stupid enough to believe Bush is smart enough to be President. Or dog catcher, frankly.

But I will vote the Dem on the November ticket, no matter who. I will do that.

But there are consequences to being a gutless lickspittle and my primary vote is one of them.

[Padraig18]

66. My sentiments exactly.

My primary vote is an expression of who *I* think is most fit to lead our party, and who best represents MY values; John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Dick Gephart all BETRAYED ME on the issue which is MOST important to me, and have no 'claim to my primary vote whatsoever. That being said, I will support the Democratic nominee whoever he or she may be.

[Hep]

70. Yeah, we shouldn't hold D's responsible for their actions

Let them get away with it like they let Bush get away with it.

[mike_c]

72. sorry, but the invasion of Iraq was illegal...

...and those who perpetrated it, those who ordered it, and those who agreed to "authorize" it are by definition complicit in war crimes. I don't care whether they're democrat or republican, soldiers or generals-- they're all complicit. Remember Nuremburg? I not only won't vote for them, I would fully support prosecuting them for the IWR.

[LuminousX]

76. the Dean camp has done the Democratic party and America a great disservice

LOL

[madfloridian]

78. No, the Iraq War was just a beginning....they knew it.

It is not a wedge issue at all. It was a horribly tragic turning point in our country. Dead is dead, we can not get them back.

Respect is another thing we may not be able to get back. Our congress gave the green light to a president they should not have trusted.

It is not a wedge issue. It is a huge thing, do not minimize it by calling it a wedge issue. Shame on you.

[quaker bill]

79. A poorly considered appeal to fear.

Chant the new mantra: we must fear republicans, we must fear dissent, we must fear republicans, we must fear dissent.....

Be afraid be very afraid....

Take no risks, find common ground, don't speak up, stay in your place democrats, stay in your place, cower in fear...

We are not doomed. Until we learn to deny this republican paradigm we will not deserve to win.

IWR is a real issue that has resulted in the unwarranted and unjustified deaths of 20,000 to 50,000 civilians. We should grow enough spine to run on it and drive the issue home.

Your appeal to fear does the party no service.

[rucky]

80. It's time to forgive for IWR

It was wrong, but the rift it has caused is just as damaging to the party as being a Bush enabler.

[Padraig18]

82. I've 'forgiven' it, just not *forgotten* it.

And my primary vote will reflect that philosophy.

[IndianaGreen]

94. The rift was caused by the party establishment, and the DLC

telling Democratic office holders to vote for IWR for domestic political expediency reasons.

[WiseMen]

81. Time for a Change. IWR vote issue has been Truly wrongly spun and used

maliciously for campaign tactics.

[quaker bill]

86. No, once again you are wrong.

It was poorly used to murder lots of civilians. I have an issue with this, I am actually concerned about killing civilians in a way that transcends politics.

If only some others from Washington had joined me. I wrote them and asked politely. But no, they had to 'protect their seats'.

[drfemoe]

83. It isn't just about IWR

It never was, never will be. There is a LONG list of nefarious legislation that Dems went along with during the past three years. If you think it's just about IWR, some information is missing.

[Scott Lee]

97. IWR is a REAL issue.

This disastrous war, and the morally offensive doctrine that birthed it, is so potentially dangerous for our nation that it cannot be overstated. One day the whole damn world may turn on us, if we do not defeat this current outgrowth of the Monroe Doctrine known as PNAC (with the Forever War idea being the fuel for it's military aquisition).

IWR is not simply a wedge issue. It is the heart of a way of being that could turn so fiercely against this nation and its people that it is nightmarish in its implications.

[paulk]

102. But, the IWR and Bush's preemptive war doctrine

aren't the same thing. You do know that Bush's original resolution was not limited to Iraq? That it was the Democrats who limited it?

The IWR backed a UN resolution - and when the UN failed to get behind the US war effort - Bush violated the IWR. The blame for what happened lies with Bush - and that is how the IWR is being used as a wedge issue between Democrats.

You are characterizing the IWR vote as being a vote FOR Bush's war and that just isn't the truth. You act as if several of the Democratic candidates would have led us on this PNAC crusade if they'd been in the White House. You have to know that isn't true.

[isbister]

107. Re: But, the IWR and Bush's preemptive war doctrine

aren't the same thing. You do know that Bush's original resolution was not limited to Iraq? That it was the Democrats who limited it?

I knew that but I bet a lot of people don't.

I bet a lot of people haven't even read it and that is probably why some candidates are able to get away with making misleading statements such as "So and so voted for war" or why they can get away with grouping candidates together even though they had very different views on the situation.

The only person that "voted" for war was bush, Congress was denied that opportunity by the administration and the republican controlled Congress a month or so before the war.

The IWR backed a UN resolution - and when the UN failed to get behind the US war effort - Bush violated the IWR. The blame for what happened lies with Bush - and that is how the IWR is being used as a wedge issue between Democrats.

I agree that bush violated the resolution. He certainly didn't exhaust the diplomatic means available (as a matter of fact he purposely undermined them), didn't provide proof of links to al qaeda, nor did he demonstrate that Iraq posed so much of a threat to our national security that no other option was available.

bush lied to the american people and probably had some creative writing done on the intelligence given to Congress at the time (didn't Senator Nelson make a statemnet about that a few weeks ago?)

You are characterizing the IWR vote as being a vote FOR Bush's war and that just isn't the truth. You act as if several of the Democratic candidates would have led us on this PNAC crusade if they'd been in the White House. You have to know that isn't true.

The only Dem candidate I know that was truly for the war was Lieberman and I don't believe he wouldn've have acted as foolishly as bush did. All Dems would have had a better understanding of the situation and wouldn't have had to rely upon the judgement of assistants.

[madfloridian]

110. Excuse me, give proof the Dems limited it.

Bush has all the power he needs. Please give proof for you statement.

[isbister]

113. Re: Excuse me, give proof the Dems limited it.

I can't speak for paulk but I remember the whole discussion at the time, don't you?

Kerry made some reference to bush's initial intentions in his speech from the Senate floor on October 9, 2002:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Bush has all the power he needs. Please give proof for you statement.

The Constitution of the United States allows the President to defend the security of the United States.

bush officially made the determination that only war with Iraq would protect the national security of the US:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_documents&docid=f:hd054.108

[Scott Lee]

115. Blunting a crime is not the same as stopping one.

John Kerry and the other Bush war appeasers may have made a gesture to blunt the Warchimps aims, but that's all the did - because it was the safe move. Kerry is all about the safe moves, which is why he does not have my support in this election. He is an ordinary politician in extraordinary times.

We need someone to slam the breaks on Bushholes war doctrine - Dean and Kucinich are the only Dem candidates to stand up bravely enough against this rancid doctrine, but Dean has the muscle to actually take it to Bushhole's face.

It needs to be done. Half measures at this point will not win us the day.

[paulk]

122. I can only point you to Kerry's floor speech

You may choose to characterize Kerry as a "Bush war appeaser". You, and others, have consistently characterized Kerry's IWR vote as support and even responsibility for Bush's invasion of Iraq. I'm sure that such actions on your part fit an agenda, and we are all welcome to whatever partisan belief systems we choose to push. All political commentators (and politicians) are subject to one test, however.

Credibility.

If you, or any member of this forum can read this excerpt from Kerry's IWR speech and still conclude that his "yes" vote was a vote in support of Bush's doctrine of preemption, or even a vote in favor of the Iraq invasion as Bush carried it out, then it is your credibility and not John Kerry's that is at stake.


Sen. John Kerry:

"And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution."

[Scott Lee]

128. You provide the exact reason I oppose Kerry.

"And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. "

That right there shows that John Kerry either lied (to support a safe vote) or is totally out of the loop on reality (not thinking that Junior would make war for sure given the slightest hint of authority on the matter). Either way, he isn't fit to be the president of the United States. I'm tired of liars or morons.

John Kerry - an ordinary politician in an extraordinary time.

[isbister]

131. Re: You provide the exact reason I oppose Kerry."

"And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. "

That right there shows that John Kerry either lied (to support a safe vote) or is totally out of the loop on reality (not thinking that Junior would make war for sure given the slightest hint of authority on the matter). Either way, he isn't fit to be the president of the United States.

And if you read the whole paragraph in that Oct 2002 speech, what would that show?

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution."

Why would you selectively quote the Senator? Did the rest of the paragraph support your position?

I'm tired of liars or morons.

I agree, too many misleaders around.

[Scott Lee]

137. I can see this caused you to start a thread on it...

Go read what I wrote about Biden/Lugar vs. IWR. There is a difference, even though I personally opposed both.

[isbister]

138. Re: I can see this caused you to start a thread on it

No, after seeing a lot of people posting, I've been meaning to ask that aloud for a few days now.... maybe you reminded me ;-)

I understand the difference Biden/Lugar vs. IWR... sometimes it doesn't seem that too many people were paying attention during the IWR... I was.

[arewethereyet]

105. billbuckhead is correct

the public has spoken, this is a loser issue. Heed this or expect the worst.

[Padraig18]

111. Nah.

In 10 months Iraq could be an even worse disaster than it is now. bill has no crystal ball, and the primary is about voting for who best represents YOU, ya know? :hi:

[arewethereyet]

127. so long as you factor in electability, sure

whats the point of running someone who can't win ?

[salin]

118. as if a vote towardds almost inevitable geopolitcal realignments in the

future - due to the perception of a no longer, necessarily benevolant single super power - is nothing but politics.

The vote was complicated and contextual. There is a difference between those who voted for it and those who assisted bush in sabatoging efforts to amend the resolution. There is a difference between those who HAD to vote (ie were in congress) and those who did not. All that is true and should be considered.

But in making that argument - trying to belittle the very huge significance of the vote in terms of historical context? That is short-sighted as well.

[Turkw]

136. The Democrats in congress have three things going against them

1. Conservative "Democrats" like Zell Miller who sabotaged many efforts to stop Republican issues. They acted like a fifth column and threatened to switch parties in extreme cases.

2. The media which has been totally cowered by the right and the Right's industry of lies and hate that not only put the issues the Right wants in the public debate, but uses the terms and sound bites they want also. The "Death Tax", why not call it the Silver Spoon Tax? Because the Right wanted it termed in a way that people would be turn off to it.

3. The Health Care fiasco is till very fresh in the minds of many in congress. They are still afraid to make the same kind of mistake and are less likely to take Big Issues because of this. Rove was masterful in use of 9-11 and this fear, along with the first two factors, to totally overwhelm any opposition.

Bush is the enemy, but he is not the only target that we must address.

Attack the messengers of hate and lies.

[WiseMen]

139. The Dean Campaign truly used the Method of RNC against fellow Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

140. Al From insulted the base

and establishment Democrats attacked those that opposed the war.

Go on blaming Dean for the failures of the Democratic Party to stand up to Bush.

Despite what some DLC pukes may say, a political party is either a party of opposition or a party of coalition. Democrats either oppose Bush, or are in coalition with him.

I chose opposition to this illegitimate regime and its criminal war in Iraq, as did millions of other Americans.

ABB is a myth, a carte blanche to the DNC to select a Bush collaborationist as the party's nominee!

The only question that really matters is, which side of the barricades are you on? The pro-peace side, or the prowar side? The capitalist exploiters side, or the side of the workers and peasants?