Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[Ediacara]

1. except for one thing

Kerry's complete lack of THOUGHT or INTUITION regarding Bush's real intentions.

"I just wanted to give Bush the power to threaten!"

JOHN!? Come on! You knew Bush was going for war and no threat if you voted yes, come on! I'm not a Senator and I knew that.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[virtualobserver]

20. when you are handing over your power to someone

it is your job to "intuit" their plans.

[sangha]

38. A one-liner response

The Constitution is what gives the various branches of govt it's powers. Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can change that distribution of power. Implying that a resolution can reassign powers assigned by the Constition demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how our govt works.

[virtualobserver]

42. only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war

when the Congress shirks its Constitutional duty, then the President is free to do what he pleases.

[sangha]

46. Another one-liner that explains nothing

No one declared war, and so there was no hand over of power. And saying that "when the Congress shirks its Constitutional duty, then the President is free to do what he pleases" is another demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of how our govt works. The President is bound by the limits proscribed by the Constitution. What Congress does has no effect on the Constitutinal limits on the Executive branches powers.

No one is EVER free to do what they please. Not even the President.

[virtualobserver]

51. you ignore reality....

Bush did do exactly as he pleased just as Congress said he could in the resolution and since both the Congress and the President are ignoring any "Constitutional limits on the Executive branch's powers", what is your point?

[sangha]

54. Another one-liner that explains nothing

You said "only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war" and "when the Congress shirks its Constitutional duty, then the President is free to do what he pleases."

Instead of defending your earlier remarks, you bring another point in order to distract from your mistake. And you compound your mistake by contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that Congress "handed over" it's powers. Now you're saying that Congress gave him permission ("Congress said he could") which implies that Congress used it's power to review (and approve) POTUS's actions. It's a farce to argue that doing what the Constitution empowers Congress to do (ie reviewing and approving of POTUS's plans) is a "shirking" of their responsibility. You can question their judgement, but there is no doubt that they did what they were empowered to do, and did not hand any of their powers to Bush*

Instead of one-liners and personal attacks, why don't you try forming a reasonable and logical argument, complete with supporting facts?

[virtualobserver]

61. Did Congress declare war?

no.

Did we wage war?

yes.

Did Congress give him authorization?

yes

Was it a Constitutional authorization? no

Why not? Because they did not declare WAR!

all of it was extra-constitutional.

The War Powers act is not the Constitution.
It is an act of Congress that hands Constitutional powers to the President that should reside only in Congress.

That act is unconstitutional

[sangha]

63. That's better

but you fail to acknowledge the many military actions we have engaged in that had NO Declaration of War *AND* and NO Congressional authorization either. If waging war without a DoW or authorization represents a "hand over" of Constitutional powers, then it happened a hundred years ago (see TR's use of the militar in Panama) and not in 2002

[virtualobserver]

65. no kidding....

my point was that Kerry handed it over in this instance, and he shouldn't have.

[sangha]

75. Another one-liner

that ignores the fact that NO powers were "handed over", and if they were, it happened 100 years ago.

[virtualobserver]

79. Congress still has the power to declare war and pass legislation.

A new act that supercedes the War powers act or a declaration of War would both be an exercise of that power.

They hand over the power anew each time they do not exercise their Constitutional power. And just because Kerry might be on the losing end of that "hand over" is no reason for him to participate when clearly it was wrong on many levels, not just constitutionally.

[sangha]

87. Irrelevant and it makes no sense

First of all, you have completely failed to respond to the fact that wars without Declarations of War have been happening for decades, so if that hands over power, then it was handed over long ago.

Secondly, the War Powers Act is of qestionable constitionality, so another WPA would not be any less questionable, and I don't see how such legislation would have had any effect. Even more damning to your position is the way it ignores the impossibility of passing such an act in a Congress where the Republicans had a majority of the votes in both houses of Congress.

They hand over the power anew each time they do not exercise their Constitutional power

Again, you fail to recognize that approving the resolution is an exercise of their Constitutional powers, and NOT an failure to exercise their powers. They didn't fail to exercise those powers; They merely exercised those powers in a manner you disagree with. Your preferences have no constitutional authority backing them up.

Finally, if their powers are continually replenished, then it is impossible for them to hand it over. If one "hands over" something, then they no longer have that something. If Congress "handed over" their power to declare war, then they longer have that power.

Congress still has the power to declare war, which proves that they have not handed it over.

[virtualobserver]

97. They handed the power over with the War Powers act.

War was fought without their declaration, and that is not Constitutional.

Since the law is in place however, unless the law is declared unconstitutional or they repeal the act, they have in fact handed over their power by law.

Humans are the point of failure here, not the Constitution.

A tradition of violating the Constitution does not alter the document.

[sangha]

99. That makes no sense

The powers of the various branches of govt are set by the Constitution, and the only way to change that is with a Constitutional Amendment. Legislation does not and can not override the Constitution.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the CINC from waging war in the absence of a Declaration of War. If I'm wrong, please specify where in the Constitution it prohibits the CINC from waging war in the absence of a DoW

[virtualobserver]

105. so let me get this straight

***The powers of the various branches of govt are set by the Constitution, and the only way to change that is with a Constitutional Amendment. Legislation does not and can not override the Constitution.****

you don't believe that a law that violates the Constitution can go unchallenged and remain law?

***Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the CINC from waging war in the absence of a Declaration of War. If I'm wrong, please specify where in the Constitution it prohibits the CINC from waging war in the absence of a DoW***


So you believe that the Constitution states that the power to declare war resides in the Congress, but the President can wage war whenever he feels like it.

Who am I talking to here, Antonin Scalia?

[sangha]

107. Not straight

you don't believe that a law that violates the Constitution can go unchallenged and remain law?

No, I don't believe that law changes the balance of constitutional powers.

So you believe that the Constitution states that the power to declare war resides in the Congress, but the President can wage war whenever he feels like it.

Yes. All POTUS has to do is call it something else, like "police action"

Who am I talking to here, Antonin Scalia?

An uncalled for personal attack

[virtualobserver]

115. not a personal attack

you seem to believe in unchecked powers for the president

and below, you didn't answer my direct and precise question. I didn't ask if the
"balance of constitutional powers" was changed.



me: you don't believe that a law that violates the Constitution can go unchallenged and remain law?

you: No, I don't believe that law changes the balance of constitutional powers.

[sangha]

117. Whatever. I'm not going to obsess over it

though it's obvious you were comparing me to Scalia.

you seem to believe in unchecked powers for the president

No, I beleive the Constitution means what it means, and I see no check on the CINC's ability to order the military into combat. If I missed it, I would appreciate your pointing out where in the Constitution it limit's CINC's power to order the military into combat.

and below, you didn't answer my direct and precise question. I didn't ask if the "balance of constitutional powers" was changed.

You've been arguing that there's been a "hand over" of power, which is a change in the balance of constitutional powers, no matter how you word it.

[virtualobserver]

121. once again you avoid the question....

that disproves your point.

[sangha]

123. What question is that?

.

[virtualobserver]

126. do you believe that a law that violates the Constitution ....

can go unchallenged?

[sangha]

129. Yes, and it remains on the books as law of the land

but it will remain vulnerable to attacks on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Furthermore, it does nothing to change the balance of power precisely because it remains vulnerable to this attack.

[virtualobserver]

135. It does change the functional balance of power

when Congress obeys its own unconstitutional law.

[sangha]

139. No it doesn't

And Congress cant obey or disobey the War Powers Act because it places obligations on POTUS, and not Congress.

[bpilgrim]

108. it doesn't grant him authority to declare war but it does grant such

authroity to congress in Sec. 8

more...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

in keeping with our whole 'seperation of powers' principle as i am sure you are well aware of.

To argue for such power is to argue for imperial rule and surely you must be arguing for such.

:hi:

peace

[sangha]

110. I'm sorry, I don't understand your point

I think your making the "Congress has the power to declare war" argument, which is not what I've taken issue with. My argument is that Congress's power to declare war doesn't prevent CINC from waging war.

To argue for such power is to argue for imperial rule and surely you must be arguing for such

I'm not arguing that this is how it SHOULD be. I'm arguing that this is how it IS. If I point out that Bush* is in the White House, it doesn't mean I like it.

[bpilgrim]

116. The Constitution only gives authority to CONGRESS to Declare War.

I hope that calrifies it for you.

Also you claim that since the constitution doesn't explicitly say he CAN NOT declare war therefor he can and i am pointing out that that is as bogus as saying that the Judicial System can declare war since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbade them to do so.

not to mention that you LIED when you said that the constitution does give him such athority by pointing to Article II Sec. 2 but i am willing to 'move on' from that false statement.

You may be pointing out 'that is how it is' - the trend i refered to earlier of the president waging war without consent or declaration - but that doesn't mean it is constitutional.

I hope that clears up the muddle for ya.

:hi:

peace

[sangha]

122. So what? That's a straw man

No one is refuting that it's Congress' power to DECLARE war. The dissension is over whether or not Congress has any power to limit CINC's power to WAGE war.

Also you claim that since the constitution doesn't explicitly say he CAN NOT declare war therefor he can and i am pointing out that that is as bogus as saying that the Judicial System can declare war since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbade them to do so.

I did not say that. I said the Constitution does not give Congress the power to limit CINC's power to order the military into battle.

not to mention that you LIED when you said that the constitution does give him such athority by pointing to Article II Sec. 2 but i am willing to 'move on' from that false statement.

You misunderstand. I did NOT say ArtII,Sec2 give POTUS the power to DECLARE war. I said it gives him the power to WAGE war.

I hope that clears up the muddle for you.

[bpilgrim]

128. now the ACTUAL constitution is a 'straw man' when that is the TOPIC - lol

dude, you keep posting as if the constitution actually GRANTS the power to the prez to DECLARE war, IT DOESN'T, and you have the nerve to accuse me of using a 'straw man' - lol

now you may be confused about what i am saying though i clearly said DECLARE war - it is in all caps in one of my thread titles no less - which then the constitution authorizes the prez to WAGE.

both very distinct words which even common sense would accept one - WAGE - normally follows the other - DECLARE - unless perverted by our leadership - both now and ESPECIALLY in the recent (60 years) past - which i am sure you do not support.

anyways, i think the point must be clear by now.

peace

[sangha]

133. You are being shameless here

The Constitution is not a straw man. Your assertion that I said POTUS has the power to DECLARE war is the straw man. I did not say that, which is why I said, in an earlier post "I did not say that"

both very distinct words which even common sense would accept one - WAGE - normally follows the other - DECLARE - unless perverted by our leadership - both now and ESPECIALLY in the recent (60 years) past - which i am sure you do not support.

US history shows that WAGE does not always follow DECLARE. See Truman, TR's invasion of Panama, the Korean War, and the VietNam War, amonsgt others. History shows that DECLARE usually does NOT precede WAGE

[virtualobserver]

130. If there is no war declared.......

how can he wage it?

[sangha]

136. The same way TR, Truman, Ike and Johnson did.....nt

.

[virtualobserver]

138. unconstitutionally n/t

[sangha]

140. Constitutionally

.

[virtualobserver]

143. give me a quote from the constitution where it states that.....

i'd like to see it.

[sangha]

144. Article II, Section 2..................nt

.

[bpilgrim]

147. again... can you point to a section in the constitution that says the prez

may DECLARE WAR?

no you can't. can you even quote where it gives him athority to 'WAGE WAR'? it simply states that he is the CINC.

but be that as it may i am suprised to hear someone argue for the right to wage war without congressional assent from the DU but certainly not from you i suppose unless you are a college student just practicing their debating skills - if so you have certainly come to the right place ;->

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

142. exactly, they were all guilty of not following the constitution as well

maybe it is time we all got together and made them follow it again?

when the PEOPLE lead... the 'leaders' must follow :bounce:
(look it up)

:hi:

peace

[sangha]

145. So says you

but I'll only be persuaded AFTER SCOTUS says so.

[virtualobserver]

146. you won't quote it because it doesn't say it.......

it says nothing about war.

[sangha]

149. It puts POTUS in charge of the military

and nothing else in the Consitution limits CINC's powers to command the military

[virtualobserver]

151. 1. No quote

2. The Constitution grants the power, it isn't a question of "limits".

By your interpretation, anything the Constitution doesn't mention would be OK.

[sangha]

153. It's not a question of "OK or not OK"

It's about Constitutionality. CINC has the power to order the military into battle and there's no limit to that power in the Constitution. That is NOT OK with me, but that IS what the Constitution says.

[bpilgrim]

157. can anyone else help SANGHA out here?

poor thing doesn't get that the constitution only gives authority to congress to DECLARE WAR.

if war hasn't been DECLARED it can't be waged UNLESS it is done ILLEGALLY.

any constitutional scholars here wanna jump in here :shrug:

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

155. that STILL doesn't give him the AUTHORITY to DECLARE WAR.

though section 8 does explictly grant that authority to congress.

check it out here...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

peace

[bpilgrim]

152. so now you are advocating for the SCOTUS to make it official?

since you can't quote the constitution even though we can :crazy:

you really should send your resume in to the 'man' - unless you already work for 'them' - since your ideology is certainly very much in line with the status quo/establishment though you are certainly to be disapointed trying to persuade anyone here of that elitist/militaristic BS look where it got imperial japan.

the GOLDEN rule, he who has the GOLD makes the RULES, another truism i suppose when you take note of history though i tend to side with the people over state authority since all their powers are dependent on the consent of the governed... by hey, thats the way i was raised, i am an american.

peace

[sangha]

154. Another straw man

I didn't say that which explains your need to engage in personal attacks about how I "work for them"

[bpilgrim]

160. what YOUR ideology?

could be :evilgrin:

though i was simply trying to charecterize your postion here and put it in perspective which certainly even you would agree is IN LINE with most of establishment and has we both have pointed out has been for a number of decades by now.

anyways...

i against that ideology, as if you couldn't tell, and wanted to make clear where i stand on this and simular issues.

sorry, i certainly didn't mean to offend :hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

71. but it really has been the rule of thumb since TRUMAN and we acepted the

mantel of EMPIRE.

doesn't mean it is a wise course we have embarked on and it is CERTAINLY against the constitution as it is written and we have been taught since our youth but you are right that in practice it is mostly a myth today.

we should ALL work together to CHANGE THAT :bounce:

peace

[sangha]

77. Yes and no.

It's one thing to question Kerry's jdgement on this issue. It's a whole other thing to use counter-factual ad ahistorical sloganeering about hand-overs and unconstitutionality. And though we SHOULD work together to change it, using fallacious arguments against one of our own is counter-productive.

[bpilgrim]

88. well it is certainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL

no one can deny that...

also i feel if we are going to actually put this country on a course to avoide disaster - think of all previous empires with GLOBAL or even hemispheric ambitions then add NUKES - we must do it from a foundation based on constitutional principles and NOT by following the STATUS QUO which is what our current crop of 'leaders' our conditioned to follow.

when the PEOPLE LEAD the 'leaders' WILL follow.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

:hi:

peace

[sangha]

89. It is constitutional

and saying "No one can deny it" hasn't stopped me from pointing that out.

I agree with the rest

[bpilgrim]

94. can you point out where in the constitution it grants such powers then?

thanks :hi:

peace

[sangha]

95. Article II, Section 2

.

[bpilgrim]

104. that ONLY designates him COMMANDER and CHIEF of the armed services

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


more...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

the section that actually grants war powers is refered to in Section 8... "The Congress shall have power to... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

more...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

:hi:

peace

[sangha]

109. It's "Commander-IN-Chief"

not "Commander and Chief", which means when he gives the military an order, they obey.

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

I don't see anything in there that limits the power of POTUS/CINC to order the military into battle.

[bpilgrim]

118. it STILL doesn't give him AUTHORITY to DECLARE WAR only CONGRESS

it doesn't explicitly forbade the judicial branch either but i doubt anyone would argue they do have that right.

rember, seperation of powers and all.

kerry has played the status quo role very well the only problem is TIME and PLACE both of which are WRONG and why DEAN is doing extrodinarily well despite conventional wisdom and all pundit proclimations.

too many folk are actually PAYING ATTENTION... the one great benifit of 911.

peace

[sangha]

124. Straw Man

I never said POTUS has the power to DECLARE war. I said POTUS has the power to WAGE war.

[bpilgrim]

132. the president has the authority to wage war once it has been declared

by congress.

That is my point.

you apparently are arguing that the president may WAGE war without a declaration of war? can you point to that part in the constitution?

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[sangha]

134. CINC can wage war without a DoW

and has numerous times.

you apparently are arguing that the president may WAGE war without a declaration of war? can you point to that part in the constitution?

Art II, Sec 2

[bpilgrim]

159. of COURSE he CAN but where does he draw his authority to do so?

it certainly doesn't say he can in the constitution that certainly has been illustrated.

just because we have been doing it for decades now doesn't mean it is LAW unless you are saying it is some kind of defacto 'COMMONWEALTH' law?

but anyways...

this is certainly something the elites believe including KERRY though it certainly will not be popular with the informed folks especially here on DU.

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

68. that is actually a 'TREND' started with the TRUMAN admin (korea) - n/t

peace

[sangha]

78. Yes and no.

Though I would date the "trend" (as you put it) earlier than you, but the point is if waging war in the absence of a Declaration of War is a hand-over of powers, then that hand-over happened many years ago, and not in 2002.

[bpilgrim]

90. it is certainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL no matter when it first occured...

also i believe trend is an accurate description compared with the exceptions we may point to throughout our history.

the FACT of the matter is that we have been on a blantant determind and ruthless course of empire since wwII and even the 'establishment' dems are behind it.

the course MUST be changed and pointing out the unconstitutionality of the current 'CRUSADE' is an IMPORTANT FACT that should be repeatedly pointed out.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Ediacara]

67. yes it is

I like Kerry, I really do.

However, I really think he's being obtuse here. He's a very smart guy, and he's smart enough to know that if he was against waging war without first going through every single peaceful solution, then voting yes would be the wrong choice.

George W Bush would take any yes vote from congress as an a-ok to bomb the living shit out of Iraq, and ignore peaceful solutions.

Like I said, I knew Bush would take the resolution and run with it, no matter what Kerry thought he said he voted for. Kerry should have seen that too.

EDIT: conversion to standard English syntax :-)

[blm]

5. They were dealing with many of the same characters from Gulf War 1

who DID put together a wide coalition and worked with the UN. Especially Powell who swore to them that the war was not a done deal and that he would exhaust diplomatic means first using the threat of force to coerce Saddam.

[clar]

2. This is such revisionist history it

makes me ill. Read the great speeches from Byrd, Leahy and others.
The truth is it was a blank check. I still like Kerry. He's a great Senator. Hate the vote, not the man. OTH, Kerry's message comes off as muddy to general public on this specific topic, and I worry about his electability more than Dean's. If he can connect to the dem base in the coming months, I'll feel better about his chances against bush.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[clar]

7. Pete,

You know I really like Kerry. I'm not parroting anything. When I watch Kerry, and listen to him, I see and hear a complex man who doesn't speak simplistically, but isn't terribly good at speaking complex truths simply. I'm not saying anyone else is; it's a rare skill. Part of it too is that I believe it was wrong of him to vote the way he did, and when I hear that it authorized only the threat not the action, I go back and Leahy's speech.

[sandnsea]

24. He never said that though

He has said last resort so many times I can't understand how you missed it. He voted for a process. The Authorization needed to be passed because Saddam would only respond to a threat of force. If Congress was going to force Bush to go to the UN, then Bush needed that threat of force to make Saddam comply. That was the key to any success at the UN, threat of force and war as a last resort. That's what he said and as soon as it became apparent Bush wasn't going to respect that process, Kerry said so. January 2003, Mr. President Do Not Rush To War. This couldn't be more clear.

[sandnsea]

18. Difference of opinion

That's all that is. A difference of opinion. Clinton didn't get Congressional authorization to use force in Kosovo or Haiti which Kerry knew would allow Bush to use force if he chose to anyway. Congressional Democrats forced the war authorization issue. If that process hadn't happened, there would be much LESS to confront Bush with now. And it is wrong of Congress to go to the President and insist on a different route and then not back that with a vote. Senator Leahy is welcome to his opinion that this Authorization somehow gave Bush more authority than he otherwise had, but other Senators disagreed. And still other Democratic Senators fully supported the Authorization in its entirety. That doesn't mean they support what Bush did with it afterwards either. Expecting a US President to behave like a US President isn't an unreasonable position for a US Senator to take.

[uptohere]

6. Pete has served up an ace here

ala namesake Sampras.

The average swing vote and casually dem Joe will see yea votes on that as a plus, nay votes as a minus. Obviously the hard core dems see it the other way.

Making it a platform level issue has all the positive effect as hardline abortion stances. It alienates and polarizes and worse still, its water over the dam.

I realize that noone will change their minds over this but I hope that they at least consider the issues that will result once a candidate is selected. Half of you will end up pissed off and that is exactly what the right would love to see. If nothing else please think about letting your hard feelings pass once this selection process is over. Think of it as 'win some lose some'. Fair ?

[virtualobserver]

9. Iraq will be such a total disaster by Nov 2004.....

that a vote to authorize will not be a plus for anyone.

[sangha]

39. Another one-liner

It's seems to be a matter of faith that a Yes vote for the resolution will hurt the future Dem nominee. Unfortunately, the only thing you offer to support that conclusion is nothing more than faith.

IMO, I don't think anyone is going to blame Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, or Edwards for Bush*'s complete failure to gain int'l support. By this time, it is obvious to everyone that this is solely the fault of Bush*, and not the Dems who have repeatedly made it clear that they desired the cooperation and assistance of the UN.

[virtualobserver]

62. you didn't read my post....

I didn't say that it would hurt the nominee, just that it would not be a plus. An anti-war nominee will fare better.

[sangha]

64. Another one-liner

that makes an assertion without making any argument to back it up. I would post an explanation for why I think it would be a plus in many voters minds, but I have no desire to respond to yet another one-liner. Should you decide to provide more than one-liners (hint: an argument to back your assertions would be nice), I'll be happy to respond to them.

[virtualobserver]

76. I wasn't trying to make an argument...

...merely pointing out that you misread my post.

[sangha]

If you don't want to be misread

try putting some substance behind your post. FWIW, I disagree that a yes vote is not going to be a plus. IMO, the yes vote WILL help with many voters, but like you, I won't explain myself.

[virtualobserver]

85. if you misread my "one-liners"....

it would be unconscionable for me to add complexity to my posts.

[Sweetpea]

8. This war vote litmus test is driving me up a wall

I agree with you. How people see his position as muddled is very troubling. I think his actions show that the President(notelect) can't be trusted with a vote of confidence.

[clar]

12. I'm not using it as a litmus test

but it has factored into my decision. At the time of all the speeches and the voting, I felt despair that some democrats chose to vote yes.

[Sweetpea]

14. I went to a lot of anti war protests and still could understand the vote

If WMD's had been found, the Dem's would have been screwed for decades as being pacifists against evil dictators. The lies were very convincing including to me though I was with Kerry and wanted more time for weapons inspections.

I don't know about anyone else but I am surprised that nothing was planted. They sure tried to spin those trailers into WMD's makers or any piece of metal found under a rock as a part of a nuclear bomb.

[clar]

17. yeah, I'm surprised

they haven't planted anything either. I went to Washington twice, and other more local demonstrations. Most of the people I've spoken to felt as I did that voting for the blank check was a mistake. As I've said numerous times here, I'm glad Senators Jeffords and Leahy, and Congressman Sanders voted as they did, and expressed so compellingly why voting for the IWR was wrong.

[sandnsea]

10. It's very clear

Except to those who don't want to see it.

[maxomai_vs_rove]

11. Partial answer

Disclaimer: I'm a Dean supporter, but Kerry is my second choice.

As regards whether Dean was muddled on Iraq, the article you cite has this quotation from Dean:

I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

It sure sounds to me like he's questioning the premise of the war. How about you?

The whole article is a straw man argument, by the way. Dean has made it clear in his stump speeches that he's willing to support war under some circumstances, and that in particular he supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. He's repeated these same arguments on television. The author could have figured this out by doing a little background research.

So, I don't fault Kerry for supporting a war when it's necessary. I absolutely agree with his stance on Afganistan, for example. But consider for a second:

Kerry could easily have politicized his vote but he looked beyond and respected the process. Bush's bungling and warmongering are HIS RESPONSIBILITY ALONE, not Kerry's. Another president WITH EXACTLY THE SAME AUTHORITY granted by the IWR might have done things entirely differently. Kerry's obligation is to the constitutional process and to the letter of the legislation before him.

The letter of the legislation before him was a blank check to exercise force in Iraq. Regardless of whether Kerry knew that it was a blank check when he voted for it, giving the President that blank check without first checking the facts demostrates poor judgement.

Why didn't he enquire as to our exit plan? Why didn't he push to find out the reasons for the war? Why didn't he question the alleged ties to terrorist groups? Why didn't he ask, "hey, if they can't attack us right now, why should I give you the authority to just rush right in?" Why didn't he make it contingent on UN approval?

Kerry is now pledging to ask all these questions as part of the process of essentially rubber-stamping the $87 billion to fix Iraq. Why hasn't he made a commitment to ask how the money is going to be spent?

It looks to me like Kerry is trying to horse-trade with Bush: I'll give you the $87 billion windfall for your contributors if you make me look good by answering the questions that I should have asked in the first place. That may be good politics in Washington, but as a taxpayer and a person who's concerned about our reputation with the rest of the world, I think it's spineless.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

43. Good questions.

It sure sounds to me like he's questioning the premise of the war. How about you?

The invasion was not just about whether or nor Iraq had WMD's. It was also about Saddam's trying to acquire WMD's in violation of UN resolutions. His suspected weapons pgms threatened the balance of power in the MidEast and his flouting of the UN threatened the credibility and usefulness of the UN.

Why didn't he enquire as to our exit plan?

Before you can figure out how to get out, one has to figure out how one is going to get in, and what resources will be available. Since, at this point, the US had still not gone to the UN, it was impossible to determine the answers to those prerequisite questions, and so it was impossible to detail how we would get out.

Why didn't he push to find out the reasons for the war?

The reasons were clear - Iraq's suspected weapons programs, and Iraq's flouting of UN resolutions.

Why didn't he question the alleged ties to terrorist groups?

Because they weren't the primary reason for the invasion. With or without terrorist ties, there was enough reason to believe that there was threat and that something needed to be done about that threat.

Why didn't he ask, "hey, if they can't attack us right now, why should I give you the authority to just rush right in?"

This has already been described. It was because negotiations with hostile parties like Saddam often require a credible threat of force in order to succeed. If there were no credible threat to weild against Saddam, then why would Saddam agree to let inspectors back in when that invasion of his sovereignity would only lower his stature in the eyes of his countrymen?

Why didn't he make it contingent on UN approval?

They tried to. They failed, which was partially the fault of Dems like Lieberman and Gephardt, who at a crucial point in the negotiations over the resolutions, undercut Daschle and posed at a phot-op standidng "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush*. This left them with the option of watching as the Republicans, with the assistance of a few Dems (like Gephardt and Lieberman) passed a resolution that was even worse, or accepting a resolution that had only some, but not all, of their goals included.

It was either "half a loaf" or "no loaf at all". They chose half a loaf.

[madfloridian]

13. Our guys are still dying, Iraqi civilians are still dying.

TPM is just one blog that has been quoted here today constantly. Isn't he an avowed Kerry supporter? He has been a constant critic of Dean, and that has been quoted here a lot today.

He is a guy with a right to his opinion, but it is his opinion. I don't think picking a blog with a point of view and quoting non-stop is right.

My point is that the vote went through, the wording was there for them to read before they voted, they knew the temperament of this guy in the WH, they had to know Iraq was questionable as a threat to us......and they voted.

They made their decision when they voted, and the deaths are continuing.

[virtualobserver]

15. anyone with a brain could see that Bush has hell bent on war.

Why else would they have been presenting bullshit arguments for going?

[sandnsea]

33. It doesn't change Iraq

There were still sanctions and containment hurting the Iraqi people and pissing off the ME. There were still years and years of testimony and reports about Saddam's intentions if sanctions were lifted. I have yet to read Howard Dean's plan on dealing with those sanctions. Well, I have, war, but now he refuses to stand by his own words. Maybe you know what the other candidates planned to do to get inspectors back in Iraq so sanctions could eventually be lifted. I've been waiting for a response on that for a while now.

[virtualobserver]

35. I don't believe that there was a solution to Iraq....

that would have created a good life for the Iraqi people. But everytime we meddle militarily we make it worse.
Iraq will simply get worse and worse as time goes on.

We are in deep shit.

Containment was an unpleasant but preferable option.

[sandnsea]

36. Agree/Disagree

Containment really couldn't go on forever. It was contributing to the animosity in the ME in alot of ways. Of course, this war isn't improving anything either, but that is squarely Bush's doing. And yes, when we meddle we make things worse. Which is why we should have had UN support in doing this. Which is what Dean and Kerry and Clark all said. The Kucinich view that we shouldn't go to war at all is fine, but I still don't see a solution that really would have worked in his plan either. I don't agree with this war at all, but I also don't think the situation would have been any easier if we'd waited another 5 years to deal with it.

[virtualobserver]

41. I agree that it couldn't go on forever....

but I fear that this war will destroy us.

I don't make these arguments because I want to bash Kerry.

I'm angry because I wanted all Democrats (including Kerry) to stand up and say no to Bush.

It was obvious to me that Bush was giving bogus reasons for going to war, and I knew that months before this resolution was passed.

If something is obvious to me and not obvious to Kerry, it is very hard for me to resolve that in my head.

I just think that it was wrong to vote for that resolution when Bush was obviously playing games.

[sangha]

49. Something was obvious to Kerry that you still miss

which is that despite the bogus reasons Bush was flinging around, there was valid reasons for wanting to deal with the threat Saddam posed by pursuing WMD's and flouting the UN's resolutions.

[madfloridian]

53. The inspectors were in there inspecting.

Yes, they were. Bush stopped the inspections and invaded.

[sangha]

56. One of us is misremebering the sequence of events

ISTR that the resolution votes came BEFORE Saddam allowed the UN inspectors back in, but I could be wrong.

[sandnsea]

59. Sangha is right

I can't even respond. Tell me you just got confused there for a moment.

[madfloridian]

70. Could congress have stopped Bush until the inspections finished?

Or had they given up their power to do so? Yes, I know when the vote was, and I know when the invasion began.

Congress had given up this power, I think. I wonder if they could have demanded to let the inspections continue. I don't know.

I am not against anyone in particular for their vote. I believe every candidate should be very clear.

The only one not getting slammed here is Bush. We keep going after Kerry, Dean, Clark. Every little bitty word is analyzed, and the press is picking up on it.

I am tired of the bashing, and I don't think we should do it. I also don't think they should have given Bush that blank check for war.

[sangha]

82. The inspections hadn't started yet

and no one knew if Saddam would allow them back in. Also, it could be (and has been) argued that the only reason why Saddam DID allow them back in was because Bush* had a credible threat of force behind him, which was the result of resolution vote.

[sandnsea]

86. Bush getting off the hook

That is my biggest frustration in all of this. Bush is getting off the hook while Democrats go after each other on this war vote. Bush would have gone to war with or without it, that's why the whole blank check argument is not really relevant to me. Congress also would not have been able to do anything about the inspections or anything else, a Republican Congress wouldn't have even tried. What we've got is an Authorization that called for enforcement of UN resolutions OR defending US security. As somebody posted yesterday, Bush's own Resolution said the same thing. There was no Iraqi liberation authorized. So I think the Authorization actually did some good because it defined what Bush was supposed to be doing. And I think at some point that will be thoroughly exposed, it's just that it's kind of hard to do it with troops on the ground.

[sandnsea]

52. You suspected

You couldn't KNOW there was nothing to be concerned about in Iraq. There are simply too many statements to the contrary, even since 1998.

You can choose to take the position that Bush is an idiot and you're not following him anywhere, nothing wrong with that. But it seems equally reasonable to me to put that aside and look at Iraq only. To try to make a decision based on the facts of Iraq alone and to conclude going forward in confronting that situation is the right thing to do. To weigh the consequences of action and inaction and come out on the side of approving action. Not because of what Bush was saying, but because of the long history of Saddam Hussein.

I really think that's what Kerry did and I really think he did it thinking that people like Powell and Rice and even Bush's father would have enough influence to handle the diplomacy properly. So he can't really go back and say he made a wrong decision if he had that thought process, but he can certainly say Bush handled this worse than he ever could have imagined which has what he has done since January. Of all the candidates it seems to me he put the most thought into all aspects of this decision, made his decision, and stuck by his promise to speak out if Bush didn't do what he said he would. That's the kind of President I want.

[virtualobserver]

57. I didn't just suspect, I was confident....

my logic was this...

If they had real proof, they would have shown it to us. Since they were clearly playing a PR game.

Also, if they really thought that he had WMD's, they would have been afraid to attack him.

I'm just presenting the negative. I acknowledge that all of the positive things that you are saying about Kerry are true.
This was just a really important issue to me.

[sandnsea]

81. It's important to me too

I followed the whole thing closely and was not convinced there was any imminent threat or any terrorist connection. That doesn't mean I could say with 100% confidence that Saddam would never be a threat or that he had no WMD though. And, while I was very suspicious of Bush's claims, I really didn't know to what extent he had hyped those claims until I actually spent weeks going through the reports and comparing them with the various views on those reports. And nobody knew he had used known fraudulent documents as support of his uranium claims. At the same time though, I read other information where I could see concern was reasonable. Then I spent more time going through testimony and reports since the mid-90's and can see where there was a pattern.

So while I know Bush is a big fat liar, I also see Kerry's pragmatism in the matter when looking at Saddam's history. Bush was making it an issue so Congress had to deal with that fact. Kind of like becoming a grandparent, you may be planning on it when your daughter's 25, but if she comes home pregnant at 17, you have to deal with it. So there Iraq was to deal with and Kerry voted to go ahead, it had to be faced sooner or later. Which I've already been over so I won't do it again.

[sangha]

48. Another one-liner

that relies on insults (ie "anyone with a brain") instead of argument. In the real world, where everyone has a brain, not one Dem candidate, including Dean, said that the Bush* was hell bent on going

[clar]

55. No, but

other Senators did. Go read the pre-vote speeches of some of the Senators who voted against it. There were 23 of them, after all.

[sangha]

60. And not one of them said Bush* was hell-bent on invading

at least, not to my knowledge. If you know of anything different, I would appreciate hearing about it.

[virtualobserver]

72. are you playing word games?

I said that anyone with a brain could *SEE* that he was hell-bent on invading.

[sangha]

91. No, are you?

If all those people (the ones with brains. I assume that's a rather large crowd) SAW this, how come none of them SAID it?

Don't you think that SAYING what everyone with a brain was SEEING would provide them with a good argument for not invading? If they all SAW this, then why didn't they USE it and SAY "Bush is lying! He's going to invade even if inspectors disarm Saddam"?

How do you know they SAW it if they don't SAY "I SEE it"? Just as you KNOW Bush* was going to invade, you KNOW that "everyone with a brain" SAW this.

[clar]

80. Here you go

It's not "hell bent", but damn close. There were others. Google it.


We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation.
The Administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force. But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that "The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions."

Senator Leahy

[sangha]

92. Not even close

Though it does point to Bush*'s lies, it says nothing about Bush*'s being determined to invade no matter what.

[clar]

100. very close

and you know it. Now go google some of the other speeches.

[sangha]

103. Not close at all

and your one-liner proves nothing. Thereis nothing in that quote about Bush*'s being determined to invade no matter what.

[clar]

113. Here

Please note the words "we are rushing into war...."

"Blind and improvident," Mr. President. "Blind and improvident."Ê Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident.Ê We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

Senator Byrd
from the floor debate on the resolution

Go read the speech, it's a humdinger.

P.S. There's a ton more from others. You don't want to see it, but it's there.

[sangha]

119. Again, nothing about Bush* being determined to invade

Just talk about how he is being in a rush.

[clar]

127. Yeah, Byrd explicitly says a rush to war

Just what about that don't you understand? Your assertion that nobody in the Senate stated that Bush was determined to go to war has now been resoundingly refuted. A rush to war and hell bent on war are one and the same. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

[sangha]

137. So what?

Byrd did not say "hell bent" or "determined" or anything like that.

A rush to war and hell bent on war are one and the same.

No they'r enot.

[clar]

156. Please try to be honest

rush to war indicates that Byrd knew that Bush was doing exactly that- rushing to war. Leahy's words demonstrate that he knew as well. So did Jeffords.

I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and other top Administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.

There's more. Lots of Senators knew exactly what Bush would do. And anyone reading the exerpts I posted can clearly see it. Except you, I guess.

[virtualobserver]

101. your argument is a straw man

......narrow debating of semantics is pointless.

[sangha]

106. Your argument is just a word game

Semantics is about the meaning of words. It's absurd to suggest that investigating the meaning of someone's words is "pointless". Charging "Semantics" is just a cover for not having an argument.

[virtualobserver]

112. saying that Bush was "hell bent" on war was a logical deduction

but not a particularly helpful argument in preventing Bush, since it would have been unprovable at the time.

It was an obvious truth that was proven out by his actions. He went to war over the objections of the vast majority of the world on nonexistent evidence.

[sangha]

114. Make up your mind

Was it a "logical deduction" that was "unprovable" (IOW, an opinion) or was it "an obvious truth"? Something "obviously true" is provable.

Furthermore, given the "obvious fact" of the hell-hole that Iraq would turn into (proven by subsequent events), I'd argue that it wasn't an "obvious fact" that Bush* would pursue a course that might lead to his losing the White House in 2004.

[virtualobserver]

120. it was proven by his subsequent actions

it was only unprovable at that moment, but it was obvious.

[sangha]

125. No it wasn't

I don't think it was obvious that Bush* would pursue an invasion that might lead to his losing the White House in 2004.

Furthermore, if it was provable in the future, then at the time, it was not an obvious fact.

[virtualobserver]

141. Im sorry that you couldn't see it. n/t

[sangha]

148. Me too.

To be honest, as recently as two weeks before the invasion I was still thinking that an invasion was still not inevitable, and even posted to that effect in several threads. I thought his threats and lies were just a bluff to force the UN to authorize an invasion. I though it was a sign of desperation, but later events showed it was determination, and not desperation. I didn't think Bush* was determined to do something that might lead to his downfall. That's why I don't see Kerry's failure to recognize Bush*'s determination as critical failure of judgement.

[virtualobserver]

158. let me clarify myself......

I understand where you are coming from, and I withdraw my statement about "anyone with brains" being able to see that. MAYBE "anyone as cynical as I am" would be more appropriate.

I could be wrong, but my problem with Kerry is that I believe that he did see, and made a political calculation which I disagree with.

I don't think that Kerry could have stopped Bush from going to war and I won't hold this against Kerry if he is the nominee.

[sandnsea]

32. It's the words

Those are Dean's words. How can any thinking person interpret them as anything except Dean supported war if Saddam did not cooperate. That's what the man said. How can you just ignore what the man said? He said the exact same precise thing as every other candidate, and by god including Joe Lieberman, and yet it is completely ignored. He didn't have to vote and now he says he was against the war so it's true. What a way to choose a President.

[Pepperbelly]

16. one thing i would like to know from all who voted affirmatively ...

does Congress have the power to delegate their war-making powers to the President. At the time, that seemed an egregious abdication of authority. I understand that some of the Democrats proposed an amendment to require the President to return to Congress for the actual authorization to proceed with war and that it was voted down by the gops but it still left me with a bad taste when they surrendered the authority.

If Congress can do that, could the President then cede authority to Congress? Or the courts to the President?

It seems to me to be a dereliction of duty to not face the really tough question and be responsible for the call. BTW, this is general question ... a philosophical question if you will, rather than a smear. I am just curious.

[hedda_foil]

34. You are correct PB.

The Rethugs didn't want * to have to come back for the authorization. Biden and Lugar got together with an amendment which would have accomplished this. Byrd and many other labored long and hard to ensure that * wasn't given a blank check. The B-L amendment was shot down at WH insistence (Lugar and Hagel withdrew it I believe but I may be wrong there). 23 Senators, led by Kennedy, Byrd, Durbin, Graham, Boxer, and many others on the key committees (the ones which had been fully briefed) voted NO to the blank check after impassioned debate and speeches on the floor which fully laid out passage would mean. Their arguments especially emphasized that the Senate would be abdicating their Congressional responsibility by voting yes.

Kerry is trying to say that * didn't need the resolution to go to war. The truth is that any president CAN go to war if the US is attacked or is in iminent peril, and THEN immediately go to Congress for authorization. However, there was never any iminent peril here and no case was ever made for it. To say that * already had the ability to go to war without Congressional approval (as Kerry tries to spin it) is specious and false. The Iraq situation certainly did not rise to that level.

A war resolution is not a simple threat. Nor is it a legitimate technique to gain leverage with the UN or other countries. It is a war resolution and serious business. To authorize any president to go to war months before any such war will be declared is to hand over powers that the president is not granted under the Constitution.

Those who voted Yes abdicated their responsibilities as Senators. Their duty is to act as a check and balance for the Executive. If the Democrats had held fast, there were enough Republican Senators who were dubious (a handful but enough) to force * to come back to the Senate if need be. Given the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate, there is no excuse for that vote by a presidential candidate that will satisfy me.

[sangha]

50. Congress has NO war-making powers

and therefore they cant delegate it to POTUS. They only have the power to DECLARE war. That's it. Declare war, and then the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has unlimited power to direct the war effort.

[kentuck]

84. That means there is no war if Congress does not declare it...

That seems to be significant "war-making powers". But you are correct taht once the war starts, the CinC has unlimited power to direct the war effort so long as Congress appropriates the funds....

[Pepperbelly]

98. and that was precisely my point...

Congress abdicated on their prime responsibility and delegated its power to the President thus abdicating both power and responsibility.

[sangha]

102. So what? They just give it another name

like "police action", or in this case "liberation". The bottom line is that no matter what you call it, the ability to declare "war" is not much of a power at all.

There is some historical context that's involved here, even if it's gone unspoken about. In the earliest days of our nation, there was no standing army. In order to actually wage war, Congress would first have to appropriate and authorize the money to pay for it. This had the effect, as the Framers intended, of giving Congress a veto over POTUS's ability to wage war unhindered by the other branches of govt.

Unfortunately, when the Constitution was changed to allow the formation of a standing army, no provision was made to give Congress the power to prevent POTUS from waging war without their express approval.

[CWebster]

19. The reality of the circumstances don't matter

so long as he supports the institution of the presidency? That is not his job--he is supposed to serve as a check to the abuse and corruption of power. Your argument is because the Right didn't support the president for the wrong reasons than the Left must be obligated to support the president for the wrong reasons.

Kerry was part of the process that enabled this miscarriage to occur precisely because he was remiss in his reponsibility to call out the charade for what it was, instead of trying to negotiate a fraud.

[Pepperbelly]

31. I would refer you to the post I made above because ...

what concern me the most is the abdication of power and ergo responsibility for one of the most significant powers enumerated to the Congress. I have not yet seen a substantial reply to this point. Can the branches of government simply delegate powers to other branches that the constitution grants only to a specific branch? And if so, what does this do to other powers granted specifically?

[jburton]

21. Really?

"Kerry did the right thing by showing his faith in the constitutional process and in the institution of the presidency."


Why would he show "faith" in an administration that already proved its total disregard for the Constitution (2000 selection, energy policy secrect, etc)

How does removing the check and balance power of the legislative branch show "faith in the Constitutional process"?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

27. What congress does

vote no.

[poskonig]

22. Kerry's opposition to Gulf War I will sink him.

The Republicans are planning to exploit this particular weakness. I'm doing my best to stay out of the sludge, but nobody seems to notice this obvious fact.

[newsguyatl]

26. i think most just don't care

i rarely hear anything about kerry anymore.


his almost immediate fizzling out has amazed me.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

30. And here is the amazing part

He is still attacking Dean when it is Clark who is elbowing in on his military selling point--and Clark is stumbling all over the place. Kerry is really behind the curve if he genuinely is in this for himself.

[HPLeft]

29. I sort of agree

I think that Kerry voted for the resolution for a number of reasons: 1) a desire to improve Bush's negotiating leverage with the U.N.; 2) a history of concern about the threat that Hussein represented to the region; 3) a sense that as someone running for President, he might someday face a similar situation, and would not want to set a precedent of undermining the institution of the Presidency (which, by the way, probably should be the subject of another debate - that is, whether our current "imperial presidency" is a good thing).

I didn't agree with his vote at the time (if you had been in my living room at the time, you would have witnessed me spewing profanities at the TV screen during the pro-authorization arguments), but I don't believe that it should represent a litmus test. In the end, I agree with Pete that Bush and the American People (and I emphasize the American People) have to take responsibility for this war.

If Americans were not running 70%-30% in support a military campaign during the winter of 2003, I doubt Bush would have had the political captial to proceed with this invasion. Kerry, Biden, Hillary, etc, all voted in October. By February, the American people were supporting a war even though Bush had completely botched the diplomatic efforts. The American people voted for this war, in opinion poll after opinion poll. They allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into believing that Hussein was somehow involved with 9/11. They were getting bored with the issue and wanted action. Yes, Bush did everything in his power to link Hussein and 9/11 without outright saying that Saddam was involved, but the American people were stupid enough to fall for it - including a large percentage of registered Democrats. By that point, however, Kerry had come out strongly against this war.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest hero of our post-9/11 America is Bill Maher. "Be more skeptical" should be posted on billboards all around this country. Sure, Bush lied, but his lies were always completely transparent to anyone paying attention. The American people were not.

[welshTerrier2]

37. Dean and Kerry: two bad positions on Iraq

Pete, are you Kerry's defense attorney now??

Talk about compartmentalized arguments ... your point that Kerry did the right thing and it was bush who betrayed us is absurd ... you conveniently ignore the context of the

situation and its participants ...

how can you just set aside the history of the bush cabal ... how can you just ignore the blatantly obvious intentions of the pnac crowd to invade Iraq ... how can you ignore lie

after lie told by bush and his cronies to justify his desire to invade iraq ...

your right ... it's not about "sending a message" ... it's about standing up to the evils of an out-of-control administration ... it's about speaking the truth to the american people ...

it's about doing everything you could do to stop this madness before it occurred ... it's about understanding the damage to U.S. prestige in the world ... it's about stopping the

destruction of long-term international relationships with countries we depend on ... it's about blocking the draining of our military strength in a vietnam-like quagmire ... it's

about protecting the bankrupting a treasury that already has run up record budget deficits ... it's about not financing a war we cannot afford at the expense of critically needed

domestic programs ...

If senators voted on bills for the sole purpose of 'sending a message' to the executive branch, chaos would ensue.

So, Kerry's point that he voted for the resolution to "send a message" to Saddam is OK with you? i agree with your point that this is too important an issue to be "sending

messages" ... but it doesn't seem like you agree with your own point ...

any way you slice it, putting the weight of the american congress squarely behind bush gave bush "aid and comfort" ... we've had many arguments on DU about the legal impact

of the resolution and whether it had any real constitutional significance ... but Kerry's own stated intent, at a minimum, was to give symbolic support to what bush ended up

doing ... his vote allowed bush to invade Iraq with the Congress in his pocket ... his vote gave away his right to dissent, and he failed to dissent, once it was clear bush had no

intent of seeking a diplomatic solution ...

and, if i might throw in a gratuitous observation, Kerry has run a pathetic campaign so far ... if he's to have any chance at all, he'd better get his act together very soon ...

btw, lest you Kerry supporters feel picked on, I agree with you that Dean was not quite as clear about the war as many would have you believe ... his "60 days" statement and

his "with or without the U.N." statement had me withdraw my early support for him ...

both Dean and Kerry failed to stand up for the principle of "imminent threat" ... while both correctly observed there was no imminent threat, neither agreed to adhere to that

standard as a pre-condition for war ...

Dean's statement that, and i paraphrase from memory, "if bush presents evidence of WMD I would give Saddam 60 days and then would invade Iraq with or without U.N.

approval" is NOT OK with me ... even if Saddam did have these weapons, the standard is imminent threat ... not possession of weapons ... Saddam was encircled ... his every

move was monitored ... even his neighbors understood he had been neutered ... this is not some small, ideological argument ... war is among the most serious business nations

conduct ... if someone would like to defend Mr. Dean's position on this point, have at it ... i'm listening ... it's not about whether Dean is or isn't "anti-war" ... it's about whether

we agree with his values on whether any given war is or is not justified ...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[bearfartinthewoods]

74. you are overworking this.....

forget the nuances. the average voter isn't disecting them as we do.

it boils down to 70% of dems and even more indies backed the war.
Kerry voted as they would have had they had the chance. now he is asking the same questions they are so his position in extremely favorable in the general.

the Dean sound bite that will resurface in the election is the "we have to be prepared for the day when the US is not the preminent power in the world." try and sell that in the general election. HA!

[welshTerrier2]

93. striving for clarity

my point was that kerry did NOT DO THE RIGHT THING ... the fact that bush betrayed kerry and the rest of us does not justify the fact that kerry "empowered bush" further than he would have been empowered without kerry's support for the resolution ...

much of your response argued that kerry did what HE thought was right ... i have no dispute whatsoever with that statement ... none ... but he did not do what I thought was right ... he voted WITH BUSH on the resolution knowing that there was not an imminent threat from saddam ... if kerry's justification for war, any war, is anything short of self-defense, i.e. the standard of imminent threat, then i cannot support him ...

There's an obvious difference between using the IWR to send a message to the executive branch and using it to send a message to Saddam Hussein.

without question, there are significant differences between the two ... but those differences do not justify kerry's tragic vote on the resolution ... he has said many times that he voted as he did to "send a message" ... but the message he sent to those of us who KNEW the invasion was unjustified was that we cannot count on kerry to see the evil of the bush regime when war is in the offing ...

[gulliver]

40. I completely agree.

Kerry, Clark, and Dean all have very valid war positions. They all thought about theirs. Bush lied, distorted, and divided. People of good will need to understand each other. That takes thinking.

[JNelson6563]

45. while not a point by point

reply I would just say I respectfully disagree.

With that said, if Kerry won the nomination I would vote for him and continue to work hard for the party.

Julie

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[vision]

58. Kerry said that he would hold Bush responsible

And yet has he?

IMO he should be appearing on the Senate floor and filibuster anything that Bush wants. THe filibuster should be him holding Bush to task for the failures in Iraq.

If you look at votes in Congress Kerry hasn't even been there many times when it could have made a difference. Take for example:

On the Amendment (Byrd AMDT. No. 1383 )
Statement of Purpose: To provide post-employment lobbying restrictions on employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Homeland Security within the Executive Office of the President.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 46
Not Voting 8

Not Voting - 8
Bennett (R-UT)
Dayton (D-MN)
Edwards (D-NC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Miller (D-GA)
Pryor (D-AR)

A siginficant vote and Kerry, Lieberman, & Edwards were not there.

Kerry should still work with others in Congress when it is important i.e. Unemployment compensation, rejecting FCC rules, etc.
But he should stand up every chance he can and deplore the adminstrations record and hold up what they want however long he can.

Stump speeches in Iowa, Ohio, and Florida does not hold Bush responsible. His abscence has cost more than one vote to go the wrong way (along with others like Edwards, Graham, and Lieberman). If he is going to talk the talk of being the one to hold Bush responsible than he should stand by that and walk the walk.

[bpilgrim]

66. not the way this war is going...

that was then... THIS is now and DEAN is appealing to the pissed off conservatives as well. then kerry gotta worry about clark giving his 'I will go to Iraq' speech like Ike did.

it will certainly be interesting thats for sure ask any pundit they have for the most part been wrong all along.

now i agree that you can make that argument for what gore did but after almost 2 1/2 years of the neo-cons everything they touch will turn to ashes, imho.

peace

[thinkahead]

69. All of this is BOGUS

The reality is, we all knew Iraq was not the major threat- nor should it have been an immediate focus in the war on terror. Iraq was an easy target and a diversion. WE ALL KNOW IT. All of this BS about the blank check authority for Bush negates the fact that we knew

a) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had far more ties to terrorist organizations.
b) Hussein had no incentive to work with terrorists knowing full well we would crush him WITH a UN alliance the second he did.
c) Hussein and Al Queda weren't really pals anyway
d) There was very little evidence to suggest his weapons program was even intact.
e) It was clear as day to those of us with a brain that the Bush administration was hell-bent on Iraq from day one of their mis-administration.

The fact that Senator Kerry and so many others in our own party failed to see that the War on Terror was taking a sharp turn in the wrong direction said to many of us - that they were simply reading the tea leaves and the popularity polls. A few Democrats, Dean included, were willing to stand up, when it wasn't popular, and say this was the wrong war at the wrong time. They had the courage to say what most of us were thinking. We need to root our terror. We need to focus on Saudi Arbia and Afghanistan. We would be spreading ourselves too thin and alienating our allies - who saw just as clearly as most of us sitting on the sidelines did - that our Administration had hijacked the War on Terrror for it's own political gain.

The blank check vote was a travesty for our party - and I think it's time people admit it, and stop making excuses for those who want to have it both ways.

[bpilgrim]

73. our 'leaders' may disagree on methods but their objectives are mostly the

same... EMPIRE and we have been following the doctrine for so long now that it is today part of the status-quo that most politicians adhere to unfortunately.

peace

[IndianaGreen]

83. The Constitutional process is a Declaration of War!!!

The Constitutional process is also to abide by our international agreements, which include the UN Charter.

When it comes to Iraq, the only difference between Kerry and Bush is his Boston accent, and Bush's stuffed sock.

As to being "muddled" or more accurately "waffled," I think Lieberman has Kerry pretty well tagged as Senator Waffle.

He should not use his vote to impugn the president's credibility. It's up to the American people to determine whether Bush is an outright liar or not, and to vote him out of office if they think he is.

And what is the point having elected representatives in the first place?

Kerry is dead meat! He voted for the war, which is what this vote was all about, because that was the DLC position. Al From was convinced, as Bush was, that the US was going to be welcomed in Baghdad with dancing in the streets, and that the war would be long forgotten by 2004. From wanted Democrats to follow the same failed electoral strategy the DLC advocated for the 2002 elections, in which the antiwar Democrats were chided as being hysterical and unpatriotic.

Kerry chose to follow the DLC's advice, rather than to listen to millions of Americans that opposed the war. Kerry also chose to ignore the British press, and their debunking of every allegation made about Iraq having WMD.

Kerry is a war criminal! His vote in support of a war of aggression, against a country that posed no threat to the United States, makes Kerry as guilty of crimes against peace as the Reichstag deputies that voted for the Enabling Act giving Hitler dictatorial powers.

If senators voted on bills for the sole purpose of 'sending a message' to the executive branch, chaos would ensue.

Is that why Kerry missed the Senate vote on authorizing Bush to develop mini-nukes? How do you equate that with Kerry's "opposition" to mini-nukes? Or is Kerry nothing but a babbling fool, spouting liberal principles while cowardly standing aside for conservative legislation to pass?

The best thing about Wesley Clark entering the Presidential race, is that he will take more votes from Kerry's pathetic campaign than he will from Dean. May Clark drive a wooden stake through Kerry's Presidential ambitions!

And may the 2004 Democratic nominee be one of the antiwar candidates, and not one of the warmongering four!

[bpilgrim]

96. excellent point about clark...

it will be quite a challenge now to 'disrupt' DEANS momentum now he will also attract more disenchanted conservatives to the dem party - especially clinton republicans - though they want have the massive grassroots momentum and support DEAN enjoys.

:hi:

peace

[CMT]

111. I don't care if it is stronger

It still was a bad vote that Kerry made. That is my opinion. I also think Iraq will be a big issue in '04 and Dean will be able to say that our soldiers are dying for what? we are spending 88-100 billion in Iraq rebuilding their country for what? His opposition to the war allows Dean to take the moral highroad on this issue.

[Eloriel]

131. Back to the drawing board, Pete

This spin isn't any better than anything else you or others have come up with.

Tell Sen. Kerry to talk to Rep. Murtha (is that his name?).

Eloriel

[sangha]

150. Why would Kerry talk to an Abscam crook like Murtha?

Is a corrupt Congressman like Murtha your idea of role model?

[bpilgrim]

161. he supports a CROOK like bush... doesn't he?

whaddaya expect :shrug:

probably needs more PR and he'll be just fine ;->

peace

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

166. it makes sense to me... he has more back bone than kerry AND seems

to be running away from from/dlc ideology... remeber PERCEPTION is EVERYTHING.

the war vote really doesn't matter now, imo, he could easily redeem himself for attacking bush on the illegality of the war now that is has been waged but i am hearing that our leaders have even 'moved on' from the 'old' 16 words in the SOTU scandal :carzy:

if any of those who voted for the war wanted to regain some credibility with many of us MANY - remember the PROTEST - fair minded folks - if i may be so bold to include myself - who were clearly against the war and speak out now about how bush was wrong and DEMAND he rebuild relations with the UN instead of trying to accept that their vote was 'right' and 'ethical' :puke:

mho

peace

[oasis]

162. Excellent post Pete. n/t

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[Sweetpea]

165. I think the anti war purists are missing out on a great candidate.

[bpilgrim]

167. plenty MORE than just the war and the 'get over it' advice is wearing thin

and just as repugnant as when the reTHUGs say it.

maybe it is an anti-establishment backlash :shrug:

he would do wel to distance himself as much as possible... if he wants the lead back, imho.

peace