Edwards Says He Still Would Have Voted to Authorize War in Iraq -

[baby_bear]

AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=apXyrHjc4RSs&refer=us

<SNIP>
John Edwards said last week's Central Intelligence Agency report confirming the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hasn't convinced him it was a mistake to authorize President George W. Bush to take military action.
...
A Gallup Organization poll of 1,016 Americans taken Oct. 1-3 showed 48 percent said the war was a mistake, a 10 percentage- point increase from a similar poll conducted by Gallup following the Republican National Convention early last month. Fifty-one percent said the war wasn't a mistake, down 6 percentage points from the earlier poll.

Kerry and Edwards may say their vote to authorize force wasn't a vote for immediate war, ``but from the point of view of a citizen,'' their argument is ``fairly opaque,'' said Ross Baker, a political scientist and Senate expert at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. ``The distinction I think is lost on most people,'' he said.

</snip>


I just don't get it. Why can't they just say it was all a gigantic mistake and they would vote no if given another chance?

This way, are they any better that Bush saying he can't think of any mistakes he made or anything he would do differently?

I feel like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown.

s_m

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Edwards has been saying this since he was running in

the primaries. That was the only thing that bothered me about him. I have to say at least he's consistent.

[freetobegay]

8. Why don't people ever finish that damn statement!

Only as a last resort! Don't you people get it?

[okieinpain]

44. thank you. the vote was a vote to show saddam that our gov.,

was united. not a vote to go to immediate war. hell I even thought that saddam had some wmd's. why the hell not, we helped him get them. I don't understand why everything has to be laid out like a kindergarden book before people can understand this issue.

[jdj]

58. two points

they've been under sanctions for 12 years

the shelf life of bio and chem weapons is about 5 years, apparently, or thereabouts.

The reason the article is spun like this is because it is the Post

[mike_c]

66. like a kindergarten book....

Saddam Hussein has been disarmed since the mid-1990s. He was already in full compliance with the U.N. mandate. He had already UNCONDITIONALLY readmitted weapons inspectors. What was our govt supposed to be united against? Why was any show of force necessary (except to PREVENT certification of his compliance, which would have eventually been inevitable)? Saying that the IWR was to show a united govt or threaten Hussein with additional force is disengenuous at best, and at worst a lie of comparable magnitude to the ones Bushco used to sell their lovely little war for PNAC domination.

Iraq was already disarmed and had abandoned all means for producing WMDs. What part of this is too dificult to understand?

[xray s]

2. god I hate this crap

The vote to authorize Bush to take military action was the stick needed to get the inspectors on the ground and to get Hussein to take them seriously. It would have worked and war could have been avoided if Bush would have let the inspectors finish their job.

The vote was necessary. The war was not.

[mazzarro]

27. No it is not crap!

You mean that Kerry and Edwards will still vote to authorize war knowing that there were no WMD, no terrorist link, no threat to US, nothing at all?

Look at it this way - Iraq under SH told the truth about the weapons program all along while all the war supporters lied or relied on liars to make their case for war and no one will admit that they made a mistake.
Even before 9/11 the onus was placed on Iraq to prove that the weapons were destroyed which Iraq did surreptitiously (for their own reasons) after Gulf War I - when the western intelligence agencies had the information first hand and refused to believe it.

My take is that Iraq was condemned to the machinations of western political leaders regardless of what they -Iraqi leaders- did or did not do about the weapons. And knowing what we now know, anyone that gave the chimp* authorization to go to war made a mistake - pure and simple no matter how much shading of the issue one makes of it.

We keep blaming the chimp for never admitting mistakes while our own candidates will not admit that the IWR vote was a mistake?

[Gyre]

46. De-motivating their base

is the net result of gratuitous statements by dems advocating preemptive war. Makes me not want to vote and say fuck both parties.

Gyre

[expatriot]

106. Listen... voting to authorize force

1. ...was needed to get UN weapon inspectors back in.
2. ...we needed inspectors in there to see if Saddam was rebuilding his WMD capabilities.

BUSH HALTED THE UN INSPECTION PROCESS AND RUSHED TO WAR. That is Bush's responsibility and his problem.


Kerry and Edwards did the right thing, it is the President who did the wrong thing.

[AP]

152. If your only motivation to vote is war, you need to open your eyes to

all the shit that's really going on in America and get your ass in gear.

[jdj]

59. but if the pres and his admin are saying that they are

trying to buy uranium, and Congress isn't sure if this is a diabolical lie or just questionable intel, wouldn't they have their doubts?

My take is they approved it under certain criteria and Bush didn't meet this criteria.

I don't know why people can't understand this concept, yet balking at campaign promises is a common meme. I mean, it's an election year, why can't people make the connection "if you approve me for president, I will create new jobs": NOT!

"if you vote for this war resolution, I will let the inspectors go back in and stay in long enough to give a reasonable reporting": NOT!

same shit, different day, so why is everyone so aghast that Bush went back on his word in this instance and not in others. What, that sure he'll lie to the American public, but he would NEVER lie to Congress?? Puleeze.

[bloom]

144. Edwards said Sunday

on Stephanopolus (sp?) that it was a mistake to believe the Bush* administration in regards to intelligence re: Iraq before the vote.

I was pretty surprised. It was in response to "what mistakes have YOU made..."

I didn't think Edwards or Kerry had said it was a mistake to vote on it - regardless.

[mike_c]

67. good gawd, when will this myth die...?

See my post above (#66). Saddam Hussein had already readmitted inspectors unconditionally, but more to the point, Iraq has been disarmed (WMDs) since the mid-1990s. WHAT MORE was necessary to prove that Hussein took the U.N. mandate seriously?

[sangh0]

72. That's not true

Saddam did have conditions, as demonstrated by his delay in making some sites accessible to the inspectors.

[mike_c]

76. no, he said "unconditionally," and besides...

...The weapons were GONE. What part of that is so difficult to understand? The "conditions" you refer to were to prevent U.S. agents in UMSCOM from using the inspections process for espionage beyond the inspections mandate (as thay had done in previous inspection rounds), but Hussein did indeed agree to unconditional inspections.

[sangh0]

79. So you believe Saddam?

How naive

The weapons were GONE.

That wasn't known at the time, and even though they were gone, Saddam was NOT in compliance with UN resolutions, and had not given unconditional approval to inspections as you falsely claimed.

The "conditions" you refer to were to prevent U.S. agents in UMSCOM from using the inspections process for espionage beyond the inspections mandate

Ummm, that's condition. Even if you think it's a reasonable one, it's still a condition, and it's a lie. Saddam delayed entry to a number of sites. He let them inspect after a few hours delay, which gave him time to hide stuff. If it wasn't a valid place to inspect, then why did Saddam allow them to inspect it after a delay of a few hours?

That's not unconditional.

but Hussein did indeed agree to unconditional inspections.

And Sadr agreed to disarm. Twice.

[mike_c]

83. history has proven that Saddam Hussein told the truth....

Unless you can produce those elusive WMDs, I'm not impressed by arguments that Hussein was "untrustworthy."

[sangh0]

85. You are now backing away from your false claims

You claimed that

1) Saddam gave unconditional accces to the UN inspectors

2) Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions.

Now that I showed both claims to be ridiculous, you're waving WMD's as a distraction, just like bush*

Unless you can produce those elusive WMDs, I'm not impressed by arguments that Hussein was "untrustworthy."

"Saddam was trustworthy" is a laughable argument. I hope you repeat as often as you can

[mike_c]

89. nope, you're wrong-- see #86 and #87....

It's getting pretty ridiculous having the same conversation in three different sub-threads.

[sangh0]

91. Nope, you can't respond. You can only distract

There's nothing in there that shows that Saddam actually ALLOWED unconditional inspections. It only shows that Saddam PROMISED to allow them. Sadr promised to disarm. Twice. He still has his weapons.

And nothing about Saddams' continuing failure to abide by UN resolutions to report on the destruction of WMD's.

You can't back your assertions.

[mike_c]

97. inspectors were kicked out by the U.S. invasion, so we have...

...only Iraq's statement that inspections would be unconditional-- since they turned out to be truthful about the WMDs, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on their intentions to allow inspections. They WERE cooperating up to the point when the inspectors had to leave in advance of the U.S. invasion.

[sangh0]

101. Saddam promised "unconditional inspections" under duress after delaying

You just ade it clear that Saddam's "promise" came only AFTER the UN inspectors had been pulled from Iraq. IOW, Saddam had MONTHS to allow unconditional inspections, which he didn't do.

I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on their intentions to allow inspections.

I hope you keep giving Saddam "the benefit of the doubt". Your assumption of Saddam's credibility leaves you with none.

They WERE cooperating up to the point when the inspectors had to leave in advance of the U.S. invasion

But, but, but you just said that Saddam didn't give unconditional agreement until AFTER the inspectors had to leave.

[sangh0]

107. And here's where you contradict yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x896681#897645

In that post, you claim that the UN inspectors were *IN* Iraq conducting unconditional inspections, even though above, you claim the inspectors were already OUT when Saddam promised to allow inconditional inspections.

[mike_c]

127. you REALLY need to review the timeline for inspections....

But I doubt you will. There was no inconsistency in my statements.

[sangh0]

129. You have spoken out of both sides of your mouth

You have claimed that inspectors were already conducting unconditional inspections BEFORE they were withdrawn and that inspectors were promised unconditional inspections AFTER they were withdrawn

[Devils Advocate NZ]

140. Reading comprehensions skills really help...

Mike_C NEVER said that "that inspectors were promised unconditional inspections AFTER they were withdrawn". Perhaps youi should re-read what he said (which happens to be the truth) rather than relying on your own imaginations of what he said.

I repeat Mike_C NEVER SAID that Hussein agreed to unconditional inpsections AFTER the inspectors had already withdrawn - that is YOUR interpretation (which is wrong) of the order of events, not his.

[wrate]

84. Agreed. No matter what, no one was 100% certain that there were no WMD in

Iraq. We all thought it was BS that they were there but with all the lies from the Neocons, you could not help but feel doubts.

I saw Edwards with Tim Russert on MTP and it did not make me feel good about him that he would not state clearly this points. Specially I don't understand why it is that he won't say that * duped them. When the vote took place I distinctly remember Hillary saying that she was voting yes and trusting * on this one.

If * took advantage of the trust that was placed on him, it should be said out loud. Shouldn't it? But saying it surely means falling in a trap, I just can't figure out what.

And, as far as I am concerned, it makes a lot of sense that you would vote to give * the authority to go to war if that is what is needed to put pressure on Saddam.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Gore1FL]

4. They keep mischaracterizing the vote

That is why Kerry/Edwards don;t change their opinion -- the stories miscast it.

I disagreed with both men on their vote, but I respect their reason for voting the way they did, because despite disagreeing with me, they did so on reasonable grounds that have been miscontrued ever since.

[baby_bear]

17. I don't disagree BUT

God gawd, surely they would have voted not -- wouldn't anyone have? -- if they had known that all the WMD stuff was "imaginated"?
(sounds like a neologism W would use).

In other words, yeah, fine, I get why these guys voted yes (but I need tequila shots to say that); but why can't they say if they had known the truth, that they would have said - hey guys, let's keep our focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.??

Hand me that tequila.

s_m

[Gore1FL]

22. I think the sticking piont is this:

If they say they woud have voted againsat it, then after elected, those same words would be mischaracterized against them.

They are in a lose-lose until the media calls the vote what it really was, or until peope remember wehat the vote was for.

[fob]

48. If they knew the WMD stuff was 'imaginated" it makes MORE sense

because the vote was intended to get the inspectors on the ground and they would have discovered the WMD stuff was "imaginated" which equals NO WAR!

bush* is the one who LIED and pulled the inspectors before they revealed saddams naked clothes!!

The vote FOR the IWR was a vote for the OFFICE, the vote AGAINST was against the person (bush*), BOTH are acceptable votes, IMO

[Charles19]

93. It was a vote that gave the Pres the decision, not a vote for war

Which in my opinion they went against the U.S. constitution, if they would have just gone by the rules it would have stopped all this nonsense.

The founding fathers didn't say the congress has the right to declare war except for when it cedes it responsibility to the Pres because they are weanies afraid to vote it says ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR.

[951]

5. self delete

[Quadrajet]

6. I hate when they say

I hate it when they say "Voted to Authorize War in Iraq" when they mean "given the authorization to use force". Errrr!

[ScrewyRabbit]

7. They've been consistent all along

They voted yes in order to give the US/UN the clout to get inspectors back in and to give time to make sanctions work. There's no inconsistency here.

[mike_c]

69. the inspectors had already been re-admitted...

...UNCONDITIONALLY, and the sanctions had already worked-- Iraq has been disarmed since the mid-1990s. Why was additional "clout" needed? I think it was needed to PREVENT certification of Iraq's compliance and to justify a WAR instead of lifting sanctions.

[sangh0]

73. Not true

You can repeat all you want, but people here are familiar with that propoganda technique.

Saddam delayed giving access to the inspectors to inspect some sites. He was not cooperative. Even Hans Blix said as much.

[mike_c]

77. it is true....

But you apparently don't care-- you're still trying to use the same old Bushco smoke screen. WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS? Irag has been disarmed since the mid-1990's.

[sangh0]

80. It is NOT true

Saddam never agreed unconditionally, and more importantly, never ALLOWED unconditional inspections. Saddam never reported on the destruction of WMD's, as he was supposed to do under the UN resolutions because he wanted "stategic confusion" over whether or not he had WMD's.

[mike_c]

87. here you go....

And in reference to your earlier comments regarding whether to "believe Saddam," history has proven him right and Bush, Kerry, etc wrong. So yes, I believe that Hussein told the truth and that our political leaders lied.

"The meeting between Hans Blix, the chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Iraqi representatives from Baghdad followed Iraq's announcement Monday that it would allow the return of weapons inspectors 'without conditions.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un /


The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-20...

[sangh0]

90. You are sstill backing away from your false claims

There's nothing in there that shows that Saddam actually ALLOWED unconditional inspections. It only shows that Saddam PROMISED to allow them. Sadr promised to disarm. Twice. He still has his weapons.

And nothing about Saddams' continuing failure to abide by UN resolutions to report on the destruction of WMD's.

You can't back your assertions.

[mike_c]

99. bangs head against the wall...

...but at least mine is out in the daylight. This is an utter waste of energy. Hope you've enjoyed our lovely little adventure in Iraq.

[sangh0]

102. I don't blame you

All you've been able to do is show that Saddam PROMISED, but didn't come through, to allow unconditional inspections, and that promise didn't come until AFTER the UN inspectors left Iraq, which was after MONTHS of UN inspections where Saddam did NOT allow UNCONDITIONAL inspections.

The truth: Saddam did NOT allow unconditional inspections. He only promised to do so, and only AFTER it was too late.

[mike_c]

105. more distortions to justify the war....

Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections in September, 2001, a month before the IWR. Check your dates again. It was NOT too late. You're also ignoring the main issue-- Iraq had already disarmed, was under siege, and was not a threat to anyone. It was certainly not too late for disarmament-- that was long completed.

[sangh0]

109. You're contradicting yourself again

You claimed that Saddam ALLOWED unconditional inspections, when all he did was PROMISE to allow them

You claimed that Saddam was in complaince with ALL UN resolutions when he was abrogating UN resolutions that required him to report on the destruction of WMD's.

[mike_c]

113. we'll never know-- we invaded and STOPPED inspections...

...that would have led to a full accounting of Iraq's WMD deficiency.

[sangh0]

114. No, we KNOW that Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions

despite your ridiculous claims to the contrary, which you have since backed away from.

[mike_c]

119. I have NOT backed away from my "claims...."

The Duelfer Report confirms what many people, e.g. Scott Ritter, knew at the time-- Iraq was already disarmed long before the IWR and was NOT a threat to anyone. Discussing this with you is a waste of time.

[sangh0]

124. Yes you are. You have completely abandoned them

Your latest posts say nothing about your false claims that

1) Saddam allowed unconditional inspections

2) Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions

False claim #3:

Iraq was ...NOT a threat to anyone

Tell that to the Shiites and Kurds. I guess you don't care about them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

143. Utter bollocks...

You are so determined to win this argument that you are sounding like a BUSH supporter!

Here is the timeline:

September 16, 2002: Iraq agrees to allow unconditional inspections.

"Chief arms inspector Hans Blix hopes to send an advance team of UN inspectors to Iraq on October 15. The Iraqi statement came as Moscow and Washington moved closer in dealing with the crisis after Bush urged Russia to back tougher action against Baghdad."

October 11, 2002: Iraq War Resolution passed in the Sentate.

November 18, 2002: Inpsectors finally return to Iraq after delays caused by the US who demanded that a new UNSC resolution be formulated and passed first.

It is CLEAR to anyone with an open mind that Iraq DID allow inspections BEFORE the Senate vote, but Bush delayed them until he could get his war resolution passed.

I knew it at the time, as did many others, and we were saying it right here on DU! WE WERE RIGHT.

Now the fact that YOU WERE WRONG is something you will just have to accept, becasue all these phony arguments you are making are just stuipd - no-one is fooled.

[Erika]

9. Congress Should Have Never Given The Authority to W

to go to war. Both Kerry and Edwards should admit it. Bush sent our kids to die in an endless war and they are still arguing semantics.

[Lorien]

10. Exactly. They should have had the wisdom to know

that * would misuse that authority. He has simply never been trustworthy.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. This is what I think the real issue is (taking the true measure of *)

Kerry and Edwards came late to the understanding of BushCo that many of us had already reached before the IWR.

I think a better way of stating this is as follows:

"Were BushCo following in the tradition of American foreign policy over the past 60+ years, we would still have voted for the IWR.

However, BushCo's National Security Strategy of Sept. 2002 represents a radical break with the bi-partisan foreign policy consensus that has obtained for the past 60+ years. Had we understood that then, we would not have voted to give them the authority."

The reason I say this is that, up until Bush invaded Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval, BushCo was in de facto compliance with international law. The minute he invaded without Security Council approval, he violated international law.

Voting to give a Prez (anyone other than *, that is) authority to use force is not the same necessarily as voring to use force. Or am I being overly naive?

[wrate]

96. GREAT answer. This is what should be said by Edwards and Kerry. n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

151. or 'Kerry didn't realize Bush was Barney Fife when he gave him bullets.'

I read a review of the first debate that characterized the two as Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife from 'The Andy Griffith Show'.

If only Congress had denied the neocons the keys to the Pentagon.

"Aw, c'mon, Andy. Give me some dang bullets!"

"Now, Barn. Calm down. I just think that would cause a heap o'trouble and heartache."

[baby_bear]

18. amen n/t

[yo-yo-ma]

11. both Kerry and Edwards are myopic on this subject

I mean - how much more information do you need to know how wrong wrong wrong it was.
To say that he'd still have voted the authorization is fodder for all to undermine his current and very valid criticisms of the war.
And it displays a profound out-of-touchness with all of us. Although it is certainly not on the scale of the reality deficit of the house of b*sh, there is some parallel in kind. It shocks and saddens me - this Kerry/Edwards perspective that can't take the obvious to its sensible conclusion.

[sampsonblk]

12. Agreed, but its a dead horse

With three weeks to go, I have given up debating this point. It doesn't matter anymore anyway. We just have to all work hard to convince people that Bush sucks and that Kerry would make a better Prez. At this late stage in the game, we have no choice but to move on. Time is short.

Edit: Removed my little opinion on this issue. Who cares?

[kokomo]

13. This is the main bone that sticks in the throats of many pacifists.

Nader, Combs, Badnarik will be getting the votes that otherwise might go to Kerry/Edwards because of their war vote. Some may laugh at these 2-3% of the electorate, but their vote may be crucial once again as they were in 2000.

I have been beating my head against the wall trying to convince some progressives that their 3rd party votes might mean Bush is reselected, but some folks have such a strong conscience, mindset, that they cannot bring themselves around to vote for Kerry/Edwards based upon their strong pacifistic principles.

[JohnKleeb]

16. how much of the electorate is pacifist out of curiousity

I sure as hell don't like the vote but those two have repeatly particularly Kerry said they only wanted war as a last resort.

[The Magistrate]

53. Perhaps As Much As One Half A Percent, Mr. Kleeb

We are violent little monkeys at heart....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[KoKo]

60. Folks who marched against Iraq Invasion should not be confused with

Pacifists who are against war for most reasons. Lumping all those who marched against the Invasion of Iraq plays right into the Repug and Dem Hawks hands.

I don't remember any marches all over the word against Afghanistan Invasion? Do any of you?

[ScrewyRabbit]

19. I'm against war, but I'm not a pacifist

This is the kind of nuanced position that conservatives hate, and -- apparently -- the kind of nuanced position some liberals hate, too. I don't get it. The threat of using power is not in itself evil. Using power when justified is a good thing. The fact that Bush abused this power is not a reason to abandon the use of power altogether.

Sigh. I guess I'm alone here.

[Lorien]

142. How anyone with a "strong conscience" can let BushCo

back into office is beyond me. They obviously care more about feeling self satisfied and superior than they do about the thousands dying due to our illegal invasion.

[JohnKleeb]

14. I really disagree with what he said but the problem now isnt the war

It's the aftermath of the war and how it's handled.

[iris3d]

21. agree

I totally agree. The problem isn't the war or even how it was handled. The execution of war was quite swift and effective. The aftermath and post war peace keeping/infrastructure was more than completely lacking.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

32. "swift and effective" my arse!

They fucked up big time. By going for the quick win, the US and British forces left a MAJOR hole in their "post war" defences - they allowed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of military grade weapons and tons of military grade explosives to fall into the hands of Iraqi militia.

THIS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE and should have been impossible in a NORMAL war plan. But this was no normal war plan - it was war on the cheap in terms of men and equipment as well as tactics.

The end result was that a fully armed (and often well trained) Iraqi resistance was able to spring up OVERNIGHT, thus giving US/UK forces absolutely NO CHANCE to win hearts and minds BEFORE having to bomb civillians.

THAT was how the US/UK lost the war in Iraq. They just don't know it yet.

[glitch]

100. yep - bombing civilians and dismantling infrastructure will not win hearts

and minds. Ever. Only those who believe in "Shock and Awe" would think it would.

They are consistently wrong because "might makes right" power does not require the ability to learn from experience, so it doesn't.

So sick of these morons.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Swift & Effective?

Tell them to send you some new faxes. That phrase is as ragged & faded as a flag flying from the antenna of a Cadillac Escalade.

Clue: The Mission has NOT been Accomplished.

The vote was to authorize the use of force if necessary; I'd have voted against it, but I can see why some did. The war itself is illegal according to internataional law. You can't have "peace-keeping" until you establish a peace. The plan for "after" the war was to make lots of money for Republican-owned corporations & establish a permanent military presence in the region.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. Hey, sparky...the war in Iraq was NEVER over.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. Folks...might I suggest you save this conversation until AFTER...

...the election?

IMHO, this conversation does nothing towards removing the NeoCons from power.

[KoKo]

62. The problem IS the Invasion and that we were Lied to. So, the aftermath

of the Invasion based on a lie is the result of a lie. There's a principle of Treaties and Laws which were not adhered to. Why should we expect Iraq to ever be "contained" when we invaded their country based on a Lie?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

15. This thing keeps getting twisted all over... the actual bill

was only allowing funding under the war powers act.

* should have come back in 90 days for an up/down vote on war, but even he knew that would not fly.

[sleipnir]

20. Edwards is exactly why I have a hard time supporting the K/E ticket

I understand his position, but his position is the wrong one. Only a fool would have rushed into this war or even voted to give the Idiot King the power to wage the war.

I love how the DLC and their followers will try to spin this position. They say, he trusted the President, the war was a last resort...Bullshit! Edwards' position on this issue is quite frightening and that's one of the last reasons why I still struggle with the K/E ticket to this day. If Kerry had picked anyone of the candidates other than Edwards, I'd be much more supportive, but I just can't justify my undying love and support for a VP candidate I'm frightened of, as a progressive.

Well, Kerry has me sold on his Presidency, I just hope he choses a new VP in four years.

[kokomo]

24. I am no psychic but I predicted everything that has happened.

I was listening to folks like Sen. Byrd, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Wellstone and still don't understand why some Democrats took the political way out. Why wasn't Kerry strong like he was in 1991 when he opposed Poppy Bush? Was it because he knew he was running for President and feared the hawks? He didn't use to fear them. Kerry was not my man, only one spot above Lieberman, but I will support anybody who can beat Bush. I voted Kucinich in my primary but it was held so late my vote was only a protest vote. I hate the primary system. They should all be on one date, not determined by Iowa and New Hampshire. I felt disenfranchised as Kerry had already won when I went to my poll. I know several who supported Kucinich, Dean, or Clark who are having a hard time supporting Kerry, won't give him a dime, and still aren't "decided" if they can vote for K/E with a clear conscience.

[LynnTheDem]

23. NO ONE...NO...ONE....NONE...NO ONE VOTED FOR WAR!!!!!!

They voted to give bush the authority to use force AS A LAST RESORT.

BUSH said he needed the BIG STICK of THREAT OF FORCE to push Hussein into allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq.

IT WORKED.

And THEN BUSH FUCKED EVERYONE.

He KICKED OUT the UN weapons inspectors when they only wanted 90 fucking days to finish their work. HE INVADED.

BUSH VIOLATED HIS OWN DAMN RESOLUTION; USE OF FORCE ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.

GOD DAMN already! It just AIN'T THAT DIFFICULT to understand, people!!!

[kokomo]

25. What was it about Bush that made some Dems TRUST him???

We all know he screwed us in Florida. Many of us were well aware of PNAC and many of us figured out that Bush was going to Iraq come hell or high water regardless of evidence. I had Bush figured out and I was never PRIVY to the intelligence that our congressmen had. I am just an average American who reads a lot!

[LynnTheDem]

26. I like how JK put it...

No one thought bush would fuck up this bad.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I thought he would. eom.

[leftchick]

37. omg... THOSE " Package* " SHOTS!!!!!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

I have lost my breakfast, thanks....

[kokomo]

43. Need some wood?

[emulatorloo]

40. Because at that point, DEMS TRUSTED COLIN POWELL - who promised them

that Bush would not rush to war and that all diplomatic things would be done. Despite what you and I thought about colin powell at the time, he was respected and was considered to be a man of his word.

However we know now that he was out of the loop.

[wrate]

117. You all seem to forget how America was behind * after 9/11. n/t

[venus]

28. Wrong.

As Sen. Byrd and many other political historians have testified; it's the responsibility of Congress to declare war, not the Pres. K/E,and every other Dem who voted for this resolution made a terribly wrong decision. That's why it's so hard to defend it. As the Afghan elections become official and Iraq simmers down some, our side will look weaker and weaker because they have nothing to complain about. It's painful to listen to them say they would do the same thing again. Now I think Congress voted to give Clinton the same type of power to go into Bosnia. If so maybe K/E could use that as an argument for why they voted the way they did.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

38. Where in the resolution does it say "LAST RESORT"?

The closest requirement to "LAST RESORT" that was actually written into the resolution was something along the lines of if the President "determines" that other means will not accomplish the goal of disarming Iraq of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

That does NOT say "LAST RESORT" it merely says that BUSH has to "determine" that negotiations will not succeed -WHICH IS WHAT HE WAS SAYING ALL ALONG - EVEN BEFORE THE RESOLUTION!!!

Thus voting for that resolution was voting for a war - everyone knows it, even YOU, even though you wish it wasn't true.

[mike_c]

71. you're wrong, but that's par for the war apologist course....

1) Iraq had already agreed to readmit weapons inspectors UNCONDITIONALLY prior to the IWR vote;

2) Iraq had disarmed nearly a decade before the IWR (completed by the mid-1990s) and was ALREADY in full compliance with the U.N. mandate.

I get so tired of hearing these lame justifications over and over. The IWR was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY except to prevent U.N. certification of Iraq's compliance and to justify an illegal invasion. I hope Kerry and Edwards join Bush, Cheney, and all the other congressional cowards who voted for the IWR in The Hague some day to answer for the deaths of all the innocents they slaughtered for no good reason at all.

[sangh0]

75. Not true. You're wrong on both counts

1) Saddam delayed the inspection of certain sites. That is not cooperation, and even Hans Blix said so.

2) Iraq had never reported on it's destruction of WMD's as it was supposed to do under the UN mandate because Saddam wanted to confuse others on whether or not he had WMD's.

BOTH of your claims are false.

[mike_c]

78. where are the Iraqi WMDs...?

They don't exist now and they didn't exist in 2001. They haven't existed since the mid-1990s.

In other news, the earth is round....

[sangh0]

81. You are now backing away from your false claims

You claimed:

1) Saddam allowed UCONDITIONAL inspections

2) Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions.

I caught your errors, and so now you'll try to distract with WMD;s (like bush*) while remaining silent on your fantasy of unconditional inspections and Iraqi compliance with the UN.

[mike_c]

86. nope, here are a couple of citations....

"The meeting between Hans Blix, the chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Iraqi representatives from Baghdad followed Iraq's announcement Monday that it would allow the return of weapons inspectors 'without conditions.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un/


The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

[sangh0]

88. So you believe the "trustworthy" Saddam?

1) Saddam has made many promises, which he then broke. After GW1, he promised to obey the UN resolutions on reporting the destruction of WMD's and he broke that promise. Saddam never allowed unconditional inspections.

2) You are still silent on Saddam's abrogation of UN resolutions that required Saddam to report on the destruction of WMD's, requirements Saddam ignored because he didn't want Iran to KNOW that he had disarmed.

[mike_c]

94. well, who do YOU think lied about Iraq's WMDs...?

Saddam Hussein evidently told the truth. Whether I believe him or not is rather immaterial-- history has proven him correct. It has also proven OUR political leadership somewhere between severely delusional and out-right liars. So you believed the trustworthy George Bush?

[sangh0]

103. "Saddam Hussein evidently told the truth."

Since the Duelfher report clearly shows that Saddam wanted to hide the fact that he didn't have WMD's from Iran, it's obvious that Saddam did lie.

[mike_c]

110. parse, spin, obfuscate....

Where's the beef? Iraq was disarmed. Inspectors had been given permission to resume unconditional inspections. The IWR was unnecessary by any measure, except to conceal Iraq's compliance and justify the invasion.

[sangh0]

111. Yes, but you do it so poorly

You made two false claims that Saddam ALLOWED unconditional inspections (truth - he only promised to allow them. He broke the promise) and that Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions, which is also false.

So you use WMD's to parse, spin, and obfuscate ...just like bush*

[mike_c]

115. we didn't invade Iraq because Hussein was "untrustworthy...."

We invaded ostensibly because Bush claimed Hussein had WMDs and was about to give them to anyone and everyone with a complaint against the U.S. The WMDs are not a smoke-screen-- they ARE the point! They don't exist. There was NO reason for the IWR or the invasion it "authorized" (in so much as congressional abdication of its responsibility can be considered "authorization").

[sangh0]

116. You're still backing away from your two false claims

You have abandoned your claims that Saddam allowed unconditional inspections and that Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions. Why have you abandoned those claims? You say nothing about them in your response.

If you abandon those claims, I'm sure you'll abandon this one just as quickly.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

126. Name calling is not an appropriate way

to deal with your inability to support your THREE false claims

1) Saddam allowed unconditional inspections

2) Saddam was in compliance with ALL UN resolutions

3) Saddam was a threat to no one (the Kurds and Shiites disagree)

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

130. More name-calling

which is what is inspected when someone runs out of arguments.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

135. Another false claim from you

Your posts weren't deleted because you expressed frustration. They were deleted because you made personal attacks with childish name-calling. I'm frustrated at how you abandoned your false claims but I didn't resort to name calling, as you did. You could have expressed frustration without engaging in childish name-calling.

any event being characterized as "dense" in the heat of an argument is hardly the height of name-calling, and going after the alert button in that situation was a cheap shot, IMO.

Your two posts had absolultely NO RELEVANT CONTENT. They were nothing more than a personal attack, and as such have no place in a discussion. If you had posted even the smallest bit of content, I might not have hit the alert.

If you don't want your posts deleted, include something relevant. Since this post is also focused on me, and contains no content relevant to the issue, I am going to hit the alert again. This time I will point out how you re-posted your deleted words, thereby acting to undo the moderators actions. IMO, that's an example of bad faith.

You know those remarks are inappropriate, but you posted them again. Don't you think the mods have enough to do without you deliberately reposting deleted words?

[mike_c]

138. you know as well as I do that I neither abandoned any claims...

...nor made false ones-- and if you really can't understand that then I'm truly sorry to have disturbed your delusional world view. Do you really believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified? That's a rhetorical question-- I don't give a rat's buttocks what you believe any longer-- but I find it absolutely amazing that you would expend this much bile in defense of Bush's war.

You've spent most of this discussion attacking me and virtually none of it addressing the relevant issues-- there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the IWR and Hussein had agreed to permit inspections to prove it, inspections that were suspended because the U.S. invaded in defiance of the wishes of the U.N. that inspections first certify the status of Iraqs then-nonexistent weapons programs.

I don't have time for this nonsense. Good day.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

145. Bollocks - the inspectors hadn't even returned to Iraq yet!

Although Iraq agreed on the 16th of Sept, Bush delayed the return of the inspectors (originally expected to be mid October) because he demanded a new UNSC resolution that would allow the US to attack if Iraq failed to comply.

This delay meant the inspectors did not return until well AFTER the IWR.

By the way, you do know that the inspections was NOT the "reason" Bush invaded, don't you?

AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said 56 inspectors as well as support staff were on board Tuesday. Reporters at the airport saw about 80 people boarding buses for the plane, and officials earlier estimated the total number of U.N. evacuees at about 150.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

Do you see what that says? Bush invaded because Hussein refused to step down, NOT because Iraq was blocking inspections:

U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.

You will notice that NOWHERE in that article does it mention that Iraq blocked or delayed ANY inspections!

Of course I do not expect you to admit this because YOU are determined that YOU must be right, no matter what.

By the way, you mentioned Hans Blix. I wonder what he has to say about it:

(CBS/AP) Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in an interview broadcast Thursday that the U.S.-led coalition could have avoided going to war with Iraq, but didn't want to.

Blix told British Broadcasting Corp. radio that although there was a risk Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the coalition should have allowed U.N. weapons inspections to continue for "a few months" longer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/19/iraq/main574110.shtml

So much for that bollocks.

[bowens43]

30. Edwards did NOT vote for the war, no one did.

[Cats Against Frist]

31. Wouldn't it be like saying

-- that we're going to overthrow a government that 1) was no threat to us 2) had no ties with al Qaeda 3) was not responsible for 9-11 4) wasn't even really THAT much of a threat to its neighbors?

Seems kind of fucking ridiculous to me -- if you're going to take the humanitarian angle, thanks, first of all for bolstering a LIBERAL argument, second -- there are lots of other countries on that list, as well, not just the "axis of evil" list. I love the Johns, but what a dumb thing to say.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Knowing what has been proved now, anyone would have to vote against it

because the whole premise of the IWR was false:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability ..."

What Edwards, and Kerry, should be saying is that the drafting of the IWR was totally wrong - because of the political pressure from Bush and his minions, such as the Office of Special Plans. They need to say their mistake was trusting the president not to distort the intelligence.

[uhhuh]

34. That's It Exactly

Kerry and Edwards should stop answering this type of question.
It sounds ridiculous to say that you would have voted to confront a threat that you know doesn't exist. That is how it comes off when you say that you would vote the same knowing what is known now.
It's like saying that you would bet a million dollars on the Angels winning the World Series this year, knowing the results as of this date. It doesn't make any sense.

[Disturbed]

35. A terribly wrong decision!!!

I believed Scott Ritter and figured Iraq would be quicksand.

Quite a few Dems have said that they would have voted no had they known what we all now do. Kerry and Edwards should have said that, also. They don't want to appear as wimps. The fight now is over the stupid phrase, "War On Terror", which the Neo Fascists cleverly have tied to the War On Iraq.

Kerry and Edwards looked at the polls and that is their weak point so they decided to be hawks. The nuance of Kerry's explanation isn't working on most voters. Yeah, I understand that there is a difference between "use of force" in the last resort and "a vote for war" but the Neo Fascists have the upper hand because the Media wants them to stay in power. Kerry and Edwards lose on this issue.

[emulatorloo]

39. Bottom Line: Pres Kerry may need the same "Authority" against REAL threat

as leverage in face of a real threat

Remember, Bush promised he needed IWR as leverage to pressure saddam, go to UN for more sanctions and to put inspectors back in.

Kerry may need same kind of authority (But will not rush to war like Bush)

If we are faced w a real threat, K/E are not gonna want to deal w a bunch of hateful Bush Republicans throwing IWR was a "mistake" in their faces.

[The Stranger]

41. This is Catastrophic.

Kerry's strategists took this catastrophic position earlier, and if the Bush Campaign ever gets smart enough, they will realize that the rest of Kerry's criticism of Bush's Iraq collapses when he takes the position that he would invade even without the weapons of mass destruction that Bush lied about.

They still haven't figured this out, and it is very, very worrisome.

[KoKo]

63. Rockefeller said on Pundit shows this weekend. I would Not have voted

to give the President authority to invade Iraq if I knew then what I know now. He said it...why can't Kerry and Edwards say it?

[robbedvoter]

42. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR - didn't just vote on it

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[KoKo]

146. Along with Jesse Helms, John Warner, Zell Miller, Lieberman and a few

other notable Senators...:wow:

[paulk]

45. it's a false choice

you can't change the past with new information so what's the point of beating up Kerry/Edwards with this crap? It's bad enough we've got Bush/Cheney running around the country lying through their teeth - we've (once again) got to hear this garbage?

ps - the "average citizen" is a dumbass. Hopefully you can do better.

[nolabels]

49. The average citizen has been rendered inert, and has had............

the dumb ass sign slapped on his back. We are that tipping point where them ordinary people realize the the thing is failure. It might take another year or just a few days but it's going to happen. A smart person learns to cut losses and accentuate and stage their assets. This all the news source is doing. Who do think bloomberg is anyway?

I could almost get near the reasoning of the people who voted for it, but not quite. A lot these people are not evil, just doing what they know (Don't get me wrong though, some are very evil, I also have no doubt and seen some).

You cannot divide the world into black and white to understand it. I like to think I can understand where and how this so called vote came, and not beat my self up thinking about it. Give credit where credit is due, authorized to conduct something is not a free pass to screw it up. Everything that was not supposed to happen, happened. Who was driving the car when the car crashed? Think about it


The Price of Imperial Folly
by Phyllis Bennis, AlterNet
July 15th, 2004
(snip)
The Iraq war's long-term impact on the rule of international law – already made evident by the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib – is likely to be just as destructive. The U.S. decision to go to war without UN approval and in violation of the UN Charter, its assertion of the legitimacy of preventive war (especially one based on false claims), and its law-of-empire style rejection of its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, all set the stage for international lawlessness and escalating conflict. Be it an Indian attack on Pakistan, a war between Peru and Colombia, or a new Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Syria - in each of these scenarios, the offending nation could argue that their actions have been "legalized" by the precedent set by the Bush administration.

The war has also, of course, transformed Iraq into what it never was under Saddam Hussein – a haven and mobilizing point for international terrorism. According to the prestigious International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, the primary effect of the U.S. occupation on Al Qaeda has been "accelerated recruitment."

And in conclusion, let's not forget the most important cost of this war: the loss of human life. U.S. and so-called "coalition" forces have lost over 1,000 soldiers, including 880 U.S. troops. Thousands more have been wounded, many of them grievously so. Iraqi civilians have lost more than ten times that number. While the Pentagon refuses on principle to track Iraqi dead, the most recent estimates range from 11,164 to 13,118.

That the Iraq war has failed to accomplish its stated purposes is undeniable: Iraq is neither sovereign nor free; The Middle East is no more democratic; Americans are not safer, nor is the world. We are already paying far too high a price for this spectacular failure. Our refusal to change course will merely compound this colossally expensive folly of empire.
(snip)
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5884

[jmowreader]

47. I would have made one minor change to the bill

and then approved it.

I would have pushed for the following language:

a. The stated reason for prosecuting a war against Iraq is to find and remove weapons of mass destruction sufficient in quantity and potency for military operations from Iraq and their means of production, to wit, x pounds sarin, x pounds VX, x pounds anthrax, mobile biological weapons laboratories, chemical plants sufficient to produce large quantities of chemical warfare agents, nuclear warfare facilities or weapons either completed or in production. This information was presented to Congress by the Bush Administration and shall be considered the Bush Claim.

b. If, after initiating hostilities against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the Bush Claim is found to be false, the president of the United States and his administration agrees to en masse resignation. Any weapons found will be examined by the commander, United States Army Chemical Center and School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and his staff and they will render a binding opinion as to whether they are in quantities and potency sufficient for a military operation.

c. If the president and his administration refuse to resign after the Bush Claim is found to be false, they will be removed from office and remanded for prosecution and imprisonment. The following personnel will be used to remove the administration from office:

1. Persons in the National Capitol Region will be collected by a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. Fire support for this operation will be provided by Multiple Rocket Launch System (MLRS) units assigned to the XVIII Artillery Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC.
2. Persons in Texas will be collected by a brigade from the 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. Fire support for this operation will be provided by MLRS units assigned to the III Artillery Brigade, Fort Hood, TX.
3. Persons west of the Dakotas will be collected by a brigade from the 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. Fire support for this operation will be provided by an MLRS company from Fort Hood which will be attached to the 1st Marine Division for the period of this operation.
4. All troops used in the aforementioned operations will be granted six months combat participation credit unless the operation lasts longer than 181 days, in which case each troop will receive a full six months' credit for each full or partial 180-day period.
5. Use of lethal force is authorized in this operation.

(the reason for the weird language in subpara 4: Army personnel receive hashmarks for the right sleeve of their dress green jacket for each full 180-day period in combat. I think that anyone who had to go in to get Bush should get one whether it took a day or six months to get him. If it takes 185 days, the troop will get two hashmarks; three hashmarks for 362 days.)

[robbedvoter]

54. Byrd, Kennedy had some realistic changes but our candidates refused

to vote on those amendments. One of them required W to return to congress to ask for permission to go to war, the other requested same, with UN.
Very few senators supported them.
I see NO EXCUSE for it.

[JackDragna]

50. Another fine example of our spineless candidates. :P

eom

[Grateful]

52. That's it, we're screwed

Bush is up in almost all the polls....SwiftBoat Vets are coming out with another add (we saw what their adds did to Kerry's numbers the first time around)....and now this - I'm so mad I can't see straight....might as well start focusing on '08 - the damage has been done for this go-round.

[Bush was AWOL]

68. LOL. Sure.

[LynnTheDem]

70. Pulleeeese

Want some cheese with that whine?

[IndianaGreen]

51. Edwards also brags that he wrote the PATRIOT Act

I will add my AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH to your AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH.

You really didn't think the struggle would come to an end with the defeat of Bush?

:think:

[latebloomer]

55. Lovely, just lovely

Wolves in sheep's clothing, that's what they are. They buy into the basic premises of global domination, suppression of civil liberties, etc.

My husband is outraging most of our friends by telling them he won't vote for either major candidate.

I'm gonna vote for Kerry, but more and more I see my husband's point.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Because of our undemocratic electoral process, we have little choice

if we want to get rid of Bush, we have to vote for Kerry. If we want to get rid of the policies that both Bush and Kerry support, such as PATRIOT and pro-Likud, we must fight them both no matter who wins in November.

[KoKo]

65. Agree......keep working for change. We shouldn't expect a change of

much with Kerry/Edwards. Too much has been dismantled and the Imperial Presidency will be handed over to Kerry/Edwards. With the Bush's setting the stage for "total secrecy" and "executive management" it will be so easy for them to just step into what's been created. We are all used to it now...

The battle to "take back our country" will be long and hard.

[mike_c]

74. tell your husband that he's not alone....

:toast:

[nolabels]

82. Excuse me do you have some kind of link on that Edwards statement

Not saying it is not true, I just don't find it in any search. I was under the impression that a bunch of spooks got to together quite awhile and help put most of it together a few years back. I also was that most didn't even see the whole bill till just a couple hours before they voted on it.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Edwards has mentioned this in his many campaign appearances

going back to the primaries. Edwards brags about him being the author of sections of the PATRIOT Act.

Here is a background article on how the Democratic authors of PATRIOT are keeping quiet about their role:

Graham quiet about his role on Patriot Act

On the campaign trail, he isn't bringing up that he co-wrote the controversial bill in the Senate.

By BILL ADAIR, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published June 14, 2003

Graham has not mentioned it in his speeches and he does not include it in his campaign biography. But it is mentioned in his official Senate biography.

Graham isn't alone in facing questions about the law. The other senators in the Democratic presidential race - John Edwards, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman - voted for the legislation.

"The issue is kind of tricky," said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "On the one hand, it's terrific to take on Ashcroft and complain about government intrusion and excessive police powers. On the other hand, you don't want to be defending terrorists' rights. It's kind of awkward."

Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman, like Graham, have not emphasized their support of the Patriot Act. But two candidates who oppose it, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, are using the issue to set themselves apart.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/14/Worldandnation/Graham_quiet_about_hi.shtml

[gbwarming]

108. Link please! So far you got nothing on Edwards. nt

[robbedvoter]

118. LINKS: He loved this reference enough to put it in campaign literature

Patriot Act is being abused by the Attorney General
Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

Also. a press release:

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2001/oct26-pr.html
October 26, 2001
WASHINGTON-The Senate on Thursday passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority of the FBI and imposed stronger penalties for harboring or bankrolling terrorists.
"This will strengthen our nation's ability to prevent future terrorist attacks," said Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

[bloom]

147. This is such BS

I hate to say it but what else can you say.

" The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now. "

Nobody "deserves" it. A lawyer ( understanding the constitution) should know that to begin with.

[nolabels]

123. I kind of think he would not brag about it even he did

To be fair an apologetic explanation about the Patriot Act was given by Kerry in the last debate from what I remember. Not to drag it though the mud, but just to say a politician is a politician.

To make it safe for others to denounce this corrupt piece of crap we will have to give them the space to do it. If you have to run and hide in a corner because you are scared maybe you need and deserve this set of laws.

Frankly unless you cannot read you should have already discovered where the corruption emanates. If we want real democracy we are going to have bring it on our selves. My best guess for the first thing to do would be to fire creep that is trying to steal it now

We will probably get what we deserve anyway, but wouldn't you feel better knowing you gave it your best shot

Thanks for the reply

[AP]

154. Edwards's wife and Edwards have said that he authored no part of the bill.

He was on the committee that was responsible for it. Edwards contributed no language to it, but he did make sure some really bad shit was kept out.

[AG78]

92. My question

is why was our congress voting on a resolution on Iraq when we hadn't yet finished the job in Afghanistan?

It's easy with hindsight, but does anyone think our congress didn't know what this resolution was for? Clinton had made plans to attack Iraq in 98 after he got PNAC's letter. I didn't now about PNAC until the spring of 02, but I'm sure our congress knew of the people that made up that group, and what they wanted to do for years.

We're in Iraq to stay. Whether it's Bush or Kerry, it's just what empire's do. It's in the empire's interest.

I'm not saying don't vote Kerry. I'm just saying don't expect to see us getting out of that part of the world anytime soon.

[PassingFair]

98. For all of you DLC apologists who claim that war was NOT

authorized by the IWR vote, I give you some words from the correctly voting Senator Byrd:

Byrd called the Bush resolution “a product of haste ... a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch.

“It would give the president blanket authority to launch a unilateral pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head,” Byrd said.

Last month, the Congressional Research Service issued a report noting the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis “represented a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today. But it was resolved without a ‘pre-emptive’ military attack by the United States.”

Bush argues the Joint Resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, authorizes him to initiate military actions on his own.

Byrd called Bush’s argument “a cynical twisting of words.... Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to ‘deter and prevent’ future acts of terrorism.

“Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate?” Byrd asked.

“A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste,” Byrd said. “Yet that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.”

Byrd said the White House failed to establish any concrete ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.

“We know who was behind the Sept. 11 attacks,” Byrd said. “We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. We have dealt with al-Qaida and with the Taliban government that sheltered it. We have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding....

“No one in the administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the Sept. 11 attack,” Byrd said.

Byrd also warned that Saddam, “ruthless in gaining and staying in power,” is likely to use all weapons at his disposal if attacked.

“Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished,... it is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth.”

And even a successful attack could lead to a long-term, expensive occupation of a nation so religiously and ethnically divided.

“If the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow,” Byrd said. “Nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother.”

Byrd criticized Bush for providing no detailed estimates of the costs of war, including the cost in human lives.

“The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war.”

Byrd again said the United Nations is the “proper forum” to search for and destroy Iraq’s weapons. “If Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures....

“Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.”



They all knew what it meant. I knew what it meant, and I'm just a dweeb from the midwest. But I cried in my car that afternoon while the vote was tallied. I cried for Iraq, I cried for the Democratic party, and I cried for the people of America, who were being betrayed and made murderous pawns in the Bush family/Carlyle syndicate energy game.

[KoKo]

104. It seems everyone wants us to forget it....sweep it under the rug and say

"For whatever reason we are there, we broke it we must fix it no matter what it takes."

Senators Byrd and Kennedy knew. We who listened to their passionate pleas on the Senate Floor knew.....

But, we are told to forget it and move along just like with Selection 2000. One wonders what Breach of Laws will finally be so enormous that folks will say "NO MORE!" :shrug:

[expatriot]

112. We are the party, not Kerry-Edwards

Let's just say for argument's sake that Bush is right in saying that Dean's antiwar candidacy gave Kerry more of a backbone against Bush, etc. Let's just say for a second that Kerry HAS flip-flopped on this issue (which he hasn't, as apparent here).


The choice is clear, on one hundred thousand and one issues, between four more years of Bush and four years of something different. Something refreshingly different. Yea! Let's go squander our vote on Nader! Four more years of Bush!

[robbedvoter]

120. Frankly, I left the party over this. I'll vote to get rid of W, but I am

no longer a Democrat after the sham of the primaries. Independents - I am back.

[KoKo]

125. Work with the new Progressive Wing of the Dem Party. They are sick

of Dem Party insiders and want to sway the party left (or actually back to what used to be the "Center" of the Dem Party.

There are groups springing up in states all over the US. But, we are working for Kerry/Edwards while trying to find candidates we can identify and fund who will listen to US...

Might be an alternative for you to look into. :shrug: Just Google "Democratic Progressives."

[PassingFair]

131. Join Democracy for America

n/t

[sangh0]

132. That is how it's done

The people in the DNC who are calling the shots, whoever they may be, are NOT going to change the party just because you've complained about it on the Internet. If you want to change a party, there's only one way to achieve that goal: Organized political activity.

[bpilgrim]

139. just think...

you could be the next St. Nader, too :evilgrin:

:hi:

peace

[KoKo]

122. Nader! Who here is voting for Nader! I'm working for Kerry...not

Nader! :shrug:

[eyepaddle]

133. This entire thread is insane

First, I want to state that I screamed and hollered (and sent letters and signed petitions etc.) against the war, and second John Kerry was not my original favorite candidate in the primaries. However as a two time Nader voter who has been thinking about our nations disastrous years under * I think I have to make a few observations: Some of you folks need to learn the phrase "warts and all" put another way (By former Soviet Admiral Gorshkov) "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough." I think our cause is much better served by holding an office holder's feet to the fire, as opposed to blasting a candidates shortcoming in this stereotypical left-wing eating-our-own-young bitch fest.

Take a look at the right-wing's success--after the blood bath of implosion of Nixon the Grover Norquists of the world could have ensured that they remain forever in the wilderness by only running their optimum candidates, and being beating savagely, time and time again. Rather they started a slow and deliberate campaign to bamboozle the country into thinking their positions were the same as mainstream America's--always keeping their eyes on the long term prize. I think we're getting close to their endgame where there are no taxes on investment income and scientific opinion is officially that the sunrevolves around the Earth.

We got here in a series of slow steps--not gigantic leaps.

We won't pull this out until we suck it up and realize how long this struggle might take--even if we get both houses of congress back plus the White House that is just a begining, we can't have a victory party and go home. My personal opinion is that this time around dems in the congress will be much more disciplined that the last time--remeber how much luck Clinton had when HE controlled congress? At the time I was seriously pissed at Clinton for being such a right wing cave in artist, after seeing what he was up against when it is completely in charge I am no longer so sure about that. If I may be allowed one more folksy bromide after the catastrophic failure of this administration I don't care if we reach Utopia, I just wanna climb out of the fire and back into the frying pan.:-(

[KoKo]

148. Look...we are all Democrats...doesn't hurt to express our opinions and

grouse. There's lots of cheerleading all over DU. It's up to some of us to keep pointing out that we have alot of work to do.

And...I'm working hard for Kerry/Edwards...but I had to swallow Edwards down. No one out in the "real world" would know that. But, here on Democratic Underground I hope to express my "now" Lefty views...and Invading Iraq over a lie was WRONG...WRONG...WRONG.

I won't shut up about it here...Why should I? :shrug:

[eyepaddle]

153. Here's my plan....

Basically my point is this--it's a hell of a lot more effective to bust the balls of the man YOU put in power than to hold out hope for a perfect solution. I've had that kind of pure idealism blasted out of me. Hell I was even annoyed with Paul Wellstone for being a little too centrist--especially on issues like victimless crimes. For the record working Paul's phone banks when I was in college was my first real "boots on the ground" political activism.

I myself am rather "underwhelmed" with Edwards, although in a brutally pragmatic sense, I like him as the Veep candidate because it keeps him off of the top of the ticket. I'm sick of southern centrists fighting rear-guard actions slowing, but never stopping the right-wing advance. Guess what, I'll jam him with whatever feedback I can--once he's in office.

During the primaries I thought all of the field would do in a pinch, they all had strengths AND weaknesses. At one time I was highly intrigued by Clark and the possibility that maybe we could turn the miltary into something OTHER than a Repuke indoctrination establishment. It's a bitter tragic shame that the Iraq War will probably do that without the intervention of Mr. Clark. That's kind of long term, to be sure, but the future is a long time.

We're hip deep in evil and basically staring at the end of civilization--you guys can fight a fight that's over with, if you want. I'm saving my efforts to keep the Dem's focused on keeping me happy ONCE there in power. I can only keep my anger focused on so many things at once, as it turns out ABB is plenty good enough....for now.

I'm not telling anybody to pipe down--I'm asking everybody to stay calm and not pick fights with each other.

:grouphug:

[sr_pacifica]

155. I thought this was time for standing behind the ticket

Doesn't matter who each of us wanted to be the Dem candidate; it still comes down to having to oust those we presently have in the White House. We are in crisis. Now is not the time to shy away from the only chance we have to avert catastrophe.

[BUSHOUT]

136. WTF???

I just don't get it. Why can't they just say it was all a gigantic mistake and they would vote no if given another chance?

This way, are they any better that Bush saying he can't think of any mistakes he made or anything he would do differently?

I feel like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown.

You don't get it? Niether do I...reading your post made me feel like the football.

After the explanations Kerry has given on this issue...good explanations...you would like to see him back away from his position?

Are you a freeper sleeper cell or what? Let's not attack Kerry, OK?

[roguevalley]

137. The bushies gasp when Kerry/Edwards say that. The morons. They

could say as it was posed yes, now? no. I *HATE!!!!!* this part of their spiel. It would HELP them to say no.

[Bo]

141. Why is he an IDIOT....I miss Clark

[MisterP]

149. "Would you have given that chimp a gun if you knew he'd fire it?"

"Damn straight!"
oy vey

[doni_georgia]

150. K/E's mistake in supporting the authorization

was in the assumption that the fellows in the White House would follow the steps in the resolution before launching Schlock and Awe. They didn't. Now we all know better than to trust said White House denizens in future. If we didn't already.

Mac in Ga

[Seabiscuit]

156. Kerry's and Edward's attempts to justify their vote on the IWR

has *always* been "lost on most people". Why? Because it's hypocritical bullshit.

Only Howard Dean (and to some extent Dennis Kucinich) have had the Iraq thing right from the beginning. Too bad Howard isn't over 6' tall, have a huge shock of hair, didn't serve in Vietnam and work in the Senate for 20 years. We needed someone like him. We got milquetoast instead. Howard's still 'da man on the issues.

[Seabiscuit]

157. OTOH, I think both Johns are smart enough

to know their votes on the IWR were wrong, that every criticism Howard Dean leveled against Bush on Iraq was right, and don't believe a word they say about Iraq in public. Why? Because in their estimation, too much anti-war rhetoric in their campaign would invite the Rovian mess media to cremate them just as they roasted Dean. So they're laying low on the issue in order to survive the election. Meanwhile the mess media is reduced to inconsequential personal smears.

Hell, I even think they actually cast their votes on IWR for political gain, not because they really wanted that nut case in the Oval Office to have authority to do anything - they just wanted to see Bush eating a shit sandwich in Iraq, which is exactly what's happening.

Unfortunately, thousands and thousands of people have died needlessly as a result. This kind of casts a pall over the Johns' political strategy. It may win elections (it certainly won nominations) but when will this country be ready to have a man like Howard Dean who's courageous enough to stand publicly on principle in the White House?

It's all sad to the point of being tragic.

[Gyre]

158. Johnny Reb sure seem to like to beat the war drum

just like all those chicken-hawk pieces of shit who don't have any idea what they're sending our troops to do.

I sincerely hope all this "I would've done it, only better" bullshit is strictly intended to beat the shrub at his own warmonger-Americanstyle game that all those nervous single female voters seem to respond to. What a freakin conundrum!

Gyre