Why aren't the Democratic presidential candidates fighting back?

[glarius]

I keep hearing Republicans saying the Democratic presidential candidates can't criticize Bush now, because they voted to go to war with Iraq. Why don't the Democrats say "I voted for it because I believed the lies Bush told us about the WMD and imminent threat and now that I know it was all deception (lies) I have every right to criticize"

[Girlfriday]

1. Kerry has been saying that to anyone who will listen

and he's been attacked for it. It does ring kind of hollow, lets face it alot of Dems rolled over on this one.

[glarius]

10. Why does it ring hollow?.....The Republicans brazenly assert whatever

they want...Why can't Kerry or any of them say they believed the lies, hence their vote for war?

[WilliamPitt]

2. Um

Clark Calls Iraq War 'A Major Blunder'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20030920/ap_on_el_pr/clark_iraq_4

<snip>

IOWA CITY, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark reversed an earlier opinion that he likely would have voted for war in Iraq (news - web sites), telling a cheering college-town crowd the invasion was "a major blunder" he never would have supported.
Clark said his Army career taught him that "the use of force is only a last resort" that wasn't justified in Iraq. "I'm a soldier," he said. "I've laid on the battlefield bleeding."

...that took 3 seconds to find. I'll bet you can find more if you look...

[EagleEye]

3. Wait, did he support the war resolution or not?

He did. He didn't. He did. He didn't.

[newsguyatl]

15. he did

eom

[retyred]

19. Only Dennis

Didn't


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[w4rma]

6. 'Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong' by Howard Dean

{Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.}

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.
...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[glarius]

9. I guess I'm going by what I see on TV....the spokesmen for the Democratic

party...When they are on shows like Crossfire etc...they never seem to bring up the fact that Bush gaved them faulty information, which they relied on to make their decision....I'm not American and am watching this from afar so I could be missing something....but it does seem to me that oppotunities are missed to get the Dem. candidates off the hook on this issue....:shrug:

[Rose Siding]

16. We definitely have a media problem!

This we know. You won't find accuracy about the Dems very often on the tube.

[PAMod]

4. Those War Resolution votes are a set-up anyway

The Commander In Chief could go it without, though the Congress could cut off the money, I suppose (that would be difficult, akin to pushing toothpaste back into the tube.)

I think the conventional wisdom in Congress is that if the War Res. is going to pass, I'd better be for it.

That said, with the track record of this administration, I think being conned/deceived is a decent defense.

[PAMod]

5. I didn't mean to sound like I'm defending those who voted for...

the Iraq War Res., I only meant that those who did vote for it actually do have something they could say to push the onus back on the Bushies, where it belongs.

Democrats have to make sure that the Iraq mess sticks to the ones that created it, and we need to be doing that now.

[Egnever]

7. problem is those that voted for it

Cant put it on bush. They had access to the same inteligence reports that said there was no credible threat. If it would have passed anyway then why vote for it at all if you knew it was BS. You set yourselve up to be paraded in front of everyone as having agreed that it was right and just. You cant get arround that. It was a bad choice done for percieved political gain nothing more. Ask Denis he will tell ya.

[PAMod]

12. Hey, I agree with you and will continue to hold it against those guys.

Problem is we may end up with one of 'em for a nominee.

I doubt that will happen, but if it does, we better ALL be pushing it ALL on Bush.

Frankly, I think that those that voted for the IWR have a lot of nerve running for president, but that doesn't change the fact that many of them are, and we better be ready to push it off on Bush should the get the nod.

[realFedUp]

8. that's true

the message is that Bush Bullies had planned to
invade Iraq even before 9/11 happened, the plan
was on the table just waiting for the right excuse.
Bush was going to invade whether or not the Congress
voted aye or nay.
Those voting aye had assurances that he'd go
through the UN...

it was the ole bait and switch as usual.

[Marlie]

11. Question for Will

I know how you have staunchly fought for Kerry - I happen to agree
with you. However, am I detecting a note for support for Clark?
I love both candidates - I appreciate all of them, however Clark,
Kerry and Dean are my top picks as of now. I always have great
respect for your feelings about most anything because I know how
much work and research you do - unlike a lot of us who just read and
write on how we feel here at DU. You go out and fight for your
beliefs and country, giving up your time to do the right thing,
therefore I usually find myself hanging on your every word. By the
way, thanks for fighting the good fight.

[PAMod]

13. When those resolutions pop up I always remember that St. Crispin's Day bit

from Shakespeare's King Harry (I think, anyway), where the men who weren't part of the battle glory "hold their manhoods cheap" whenever the veterans talk of the fight.

Then of course there's the other thing - the polls at that moment (not that any of these guys were looking at polls!)

[Mechatanketra]

17. Once more for the cheap seats ...

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. -- War Powers Act (1973) Emphasis mine.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. -- Excerpt from the Iraq war resolution.

If the President "goes without", he's breaking the law -- he doesn't have the power to put troops in the line of fire without a direct attack to respond to, an act of Congress (such as the Iraq resolution, as seen above), or a declaration of war (which is also an act of Congress).

I realize that people whose patron politicians came down on the wrong side of the resolution want the warm fuzzy security blanket of 'knowing' it was ostensibly a figurehead gesture akin to the resolution that censured the Pledge of Allegiance court decision -- but it's not. That bill really did give Bush a power/authority he didn't wield before the vote, and he couldn't have legally invaded Iraq without it.

[uptohere]

14. they all said it so fight back against what ? who ? DU ?

Who is worrying about it ? If it were a lot of people then they probably would but its not.

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. I, for one, would never be able to believe that. When I think back on

those days last year, I was incredulous over the concocted stories, the supposed "proof". And so, you have the constituents of these candidates who were already questioning the validity of these claims....left to wonder why those who should know more, went along with it. Just my opinion.