C-Span 2 now. 10:15 EST - don't miss this. It's on right now and amazing

[anarchy1999]

Panel Discussion:

Michael Klare, author of "Blood and Oil".

Amy Goodman, producer and journalist, Democracy Now.

Noam Choamsky, PhD., professor and author.

One other person yet to identify.

Held on 10/8/04 at Trinity Church, Boston.


on edit: person identified,

James Carroll, author, "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War (The American Empire Project)

[eleny]

1. Thanks!

[jonnyblitz]

2. delete

wrong info after i checked. :P

[whirlygigspin]

3. thank you!

:yourock:

[anarchy1999]

4. This is the best, please DU'ers go to C-Span 2 now!

You're going to love it!

[Skip Intro]

5. Amy just said Kerry said he would still vote for "the invasion

but thats not what Kerry has said, and what he's actually said is not difficult to state.

He voted for the president to have the power, not for the invasion.

Why did she phrase it the way she did?

[Jim Sagle]

6. Because she's part of the Al Jazeerah Left.

[anarchy1999]

7. In the resolution, by giving the power to Bush, he gave over to the

office of president, with his vote, the ability to invade without requiring the approval of the Senate and Congress. This is what Senator Byrd spent many hours on the floor speaking about. The abdication of our elected officials responsibility to the Constitution and to thier constiutients.

Only our Senators and our Congressman are allowed to take this country "to war" as defined in out Constitution. They are supposed to be representing the people that voted them in, the districts and states they are from and are in Washington, DC, to represent.

Kerry with his vote, abdicated that responsibility, as did Edwards and I believe this is what Amy is speaking of. Byrd called it treasonous behavior and a sad day. Many times.

Byrd was a hero and that couple of weeks leading up to that terrible day of the vote were momentous around here. We all made many calls, sent many faxes and there were even a bunch that started a campaign that sent Senator Byrd, his office and staff many flowers for a thank you for his support of us all. (His wife was actually in the hospital at the time).

Don't ever discount Amy Goodman. She is one of the best journalists to be found.

[Skip Intro]

11. Wow, thanks

thanks very much. I'll admit I don't really know her, and if you think thats what she was saying, that the Congress unconstitutionally transferred power to the president/executive, then I'll take it that way.

It is shocking that the Constitution was subverted by those sworn to protect it, and further thought on this will begin to enrage me. I'm more focused on removing the one who ordered the illegal war.

There is a lot to deal with after that goal is realized.

[sandnsea]

15. 1973 War Powers Resolution

Allows Congress to vote to give Presidents power to insert troops with varying conditions. The IWR met the legal standards and was clear that military action was to be a last resort and to protect the US. It did not give Bush authority to "free Iraqi's" or overthrow Saddam or any of the rest. It was very clear, Kerry was very clear. Bush abused his power.

[Kanary]

21. Senator Byrd has been shining a very bright light on

where our leaders are in terms of the Constitution. He must be with a very heavy heart...... just hearing him tears y heart out.

Now you can understand why so many of us are discouraged with Kerry's stand. There is much more to this than a surface glance can reveal.

Thanks for understanding. Many of us stand with Byrd on this.

Kanary

[Hatalles]

25. Amen. Amy & Pacifica Radio are great. n/t

[sandnsea]

8. They can't hold two thoughts

at the same time. They can't understand Byrd saying the US should only go to war with a Declaration of War and Kerry deciding the President needed authority to move forward on Iraq are two different, yet legitimate, views. Just can't hold the two thoughts in their head at the same time. That's why they say stupid shit like "Kerry voted for the war".

[Robbie67]

12. The IWR had nothing to do with "authorization"

If it did, why were all the Repukes comparing Saddam to Hitler?

The IWR was the lynchpin in Bush's rush to war. The Democrats stumbled (or, not, depending on how one sees things).

[sandnsea]

13. Oh it was not

Bush would have went on with his war, with or without it. The House actually voted against Kosovo and Clinton went ahead anyway. Bush got the country to go against the UN and support the war, didn't he? What the hell difference did the IWR make? Absolutely none. He would have just made something up and sent in the troops. President's have been doing it for decades.

[Robbie67]

14. The IWR was a chance for the Democrats

to unequivically and unilaterally say NO to Bush and his war plans.

Besides, if Kerry and the others who voted yes were correct, why did so many Democrats vote NO? Are they idiots? Don't they love their country?

They were RIGHT to say NO and Kerry should have said no.

[sandnsea]

16. Different Opinions

Which is fine. But it simply wasn't an issue of for or against war in October 2002, it just wasn't.

[Robbie67]

17. I don't see how you can say that

Bush had been talking about Iraq from shortly after 9/11. It was obvious to EVERYONE that he was hell bent on invading Iraq.

[sandnsea]

18. At that time

He appeared to be listening to Powell and people from his father's Administration, like Skowcroft, who had a more rational view of how to deal with Iraq. Voting to authorize that sort of rational approach is what Kerry did. The WHY of the vote is important and different people voted for different reasons. Bob Graham, he voted no so everybody raved about how he was anti-war. He voted no because he was worried the IWR didn't allow Bush the ability to go to war with Syria or whatever country he thought the terrorists were in. A yes or a no isn't the end all to a vote.

[anarchy1999]

19. Sorry, you just don't seem to quite get it. This was an abdication of

our elected representatives to represent us, their constituents and their oath upon taking office to uphold the Constitution. There are absolutely no ifs, ands or buts about this main issue.

[sandnsea]

22. I get it

That was Byrd's view. There is also the 1973 War Powers Act, as I already mentioned. If you believe we should never go to war unless there's an actual declaration of war, fine, it's a view. But Jefferson was the first to send in the Navy without one. It's not new to do so.

[anarchy1999]

24. It was not just Byrd's view. He had the Constitution in his hand.

What Senator Byrd recited on the floor of the Senate was our Constitution, he called upon other senators of the state to stand up for the oath they had taken to support said document.

Senator Byrd is a national treasure. I can't say anything more in his support, or in the support of Americans.

[sandnsea]

26. Jefferson was there

Jefferson thought he had the right to use the Navy and he was there at the time. I guess he knew what he was talking about. There's a difference between a Declaration of War where you intend to take over and rule a country, and a temporary military intervention for legitimate US puposes where you don't intend to rule the country. If we sent troops to Sudan, would we need to declare war on the country? Now you can argue that Bush intends to rule Iraq, but that isn't the tradition and history of this country so it would have been a lame argument in 2002 and doesn't even sell very well today.

Bryd's a great Senator. He's right we all should take the responsibility of war and military action more seriously. That Congress take it more seriously. It doesn't mean his view is the absolute and only interpretation.

[anarchy1999]

27. Dear sandnsea, so nice to finally get to know you. I think you might not

be long for this "silly" DU world.

Good luck.

[sandnsea]

28. 14,461 posts

Been here since early 2003. No plans on going anywhere.

Please answer the Sudan question. And did we send troops to Liberia? I honestly don't remember although I think we sent a few. Declare war?

And, you also need to take absolute personal responsibility for the fact that Kerry has been hammered with "voted for the war, voted against the $87 billion". It is people like you, some Dems and those on the left, who absolutey refused to put the blame for this war on Bush's head. You helped put it on the head of John Kerry, helped him get saddled with this "voted for the war", all year long, and let Bush walk away unscathed for telling the American people war was avoidable in 2002 when we now know he had war plans on the table in 2001. No no no, it was a vote for war. Very good, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[Robbie67]

20. It was to this one

Plus, the Democrats were trying to play "I'm a better Imperialist" at that time also, hoping to steal the thunder from the whacked-out warmongering Bushies.

[sandnsea]

23. That's your view

It doesn't make it right. Just makes it a point of view.

[FormerOstrich]

29. I'm behind Kerry 200%

However, at no point did it appear * was listening to Powell and Scowcroft. There was not a single indicator he was seeking any sort of rational approach. He didn't need Congress to vote on using rational!

I do agree different people voted for different reasons. I don't know what it takes to be a politician. I suspect some felt it prudent to vote yes and maybe it was for their career.

That was such a dark time for me. I'll never forget the days before and the day of. I was literally sick when they voted. That painful day remains in my heart. In spite of these feelings, I really do not think it matters, at this point, which way Kerry voted.

It shocks me how the spin assigns Kerry as the culprit because of the vote. Like the vote is what forced * to act. However, I am of the belief * would have acted either way. He pretty much threatened that at the time. The vote was nothing but show and tell, smoke and mirrors, just a little bonus for future use (or bludgeoning).

At no time did it appear it was a vote to moderate the situation.

[sandnsea]

30. At the time

He said war was avoidable, no decision had been made to go to war at all. That is what he said at the time. Skowcroft had come out, and other's in 41's administration, who were much more moderate on war than Georgie. Bush had agreed to go to the UN and get a resolution and work with the UN; which he hadn't previously. So yes, in Oct 2002, he had moderated his position quite a bit from Cheney's war talk in July.

Mind you, I didn't believe Bush either, but I did hope the influence of people like Skowcroft would prevail. I can totally understand the yes vote in the context Kerry gave it, which I understood when I read his floor statement before the vote.

[happynewyear]

9. oh gee better than CSPAN w/Ahnuld

:puke: :puke: :puke:

I'll switch channels right away!

Thanks!

:kick:

[peacetalksforall]

10. I'm with Amy - it was obvious how the authority was going to be

interpreted and used with belicose boasting - I don't see how anyone in Washington couldn't know that the war was all set up - Clinton Shirmer Edwards Kerry and all the others wanted the patriotic votes and maybe in some microscopic place in their soul - they thought they could get away with the regime not kicking the UN in the behind.

I could go on. I won't. I'll defend Amy...subject to hearing it when it rebroadcasts.

We don't need to be delusional.

I'll apologize if what she says doesn't set well with me - and I'll apologize if I ever understand the rational of the yes voters.

We pay them to think things through and put there foot down. It will always be a suspect act with me.

I love Theresa. I respect Kerry and Edwards for other things. But, not that vote. I've gone from hot to lukewarm to cool on Clinton and Shirmer and all the others. They didn't represent me on this one. Sounds like they all got together and thought they could pull this off while others saw the light.