"Voting for the War"

[ProfessorPlum]

In the next seven months, as the Democratic party goes through a certain amount of infighting and
decides who is going to be their nominee, you will hear that such and such a candidate “voted for the
Iraq war” over and over again. Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Kerry all voted Yes on the Iraq
War Resolution which passed last October. The media will say it, the candidates opponents will say it,
and the candidates themselves will probably say it, too.

But it is important to understand what it was that they were actually voting for, so that the vote can be
put into proper perspective. For one thing, the Bush people would like this to mean that criticizing the
Iraq war is now off the table for those candidates. They will say, in mock horror, “How can John Kerry
criticize this administration’s actions in Iraq, when HE VOTED FOR THE WAR?”.

People will also say that these Democrats and other Democrats in Congress voted “to give Bush the
authority to go to war”. This is also not exactly true.

Bush always had the power to get us into a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with or without a blessing from
Congress. As Commander In Chief, he can order the military to go anywhere and do anything, despite
Congress’ formal power to declare war. However, because of the War Powers Act passed after
Vietnam, Congress has the ability to cut funding from a military action after 2-3 months if they do not
support it.

If Congress does not pass an authorization with limits and conditions on the President’s actions, then the
President can wage war and continue to wage war with essentially no restrictions. So the first important
point about the IWR is that it was absolutely crucial that such a resolution be passed, outlining the
Congress’ goals and limiting Bush’s ability to wage war.

The Senate and the House began drafting separate bills. The House, largely Republican controlled,
created a bill which essentially gave Bush free reign to wage war anywhere in the Middle East he
wanted to, with few restrictions on cause. The Senate, more evenly divided, eventually came up with the
Biden-Lugar bill, which would have been a bit more exacting in geographical restriction and burden of
proof than what was actually passed.

Now, the Republicans control Congress. That being the case, it was pretty likely that some authorization
which essentially favored Bush was going to pass, and he was going to be allowed to have his little war.
That was inevitable. So, the only thing the Democrats could do was to make the authorization as
responsible as they could. However, right away some of them started to jump ship.

Gephardt and Lieberman undercut the more responsible Senate position right away by stating that they
would back the much more warmonger-friendly House version. This cut the legs out of the Senate
position considerably. You may remember Gephardt and Lieberman standing shoulder to shoulder next
to Bush at a photo-op last fall, trying to appear “tough on national security”. Good luck with that, guys.

However, the Democrats in the Senate didn’t give up, and kept pushing a compromise bill which still had
a lot of teeth in it. It forced Bush to go to the UN and attempt to win a UN security council vote of
approval. This was the reason Colin Powell had to swallow the last bit of credibility he had and go to the
UN and lie his way through that mendacious presentation of his. The resolution also demanded that all
diplomatic avenues had to be exhausted before we invaded. This was obviously not met, and so
technically, if the Congress wasn’t such a creature of this administration, they could now withdraw
funding from our mission in Iraq. In the end, the IWR did much more good than it did harm, in that it
forced Bush to lie in the face of the world, show that he actually didn’t have any proof before he went to
war, and restricted the geographic constraints of our current actions.

When the compromise was completed and it was pretty clear that it was going to pass, the Democrats
had a choice of whether to vote yes or no on it. This was largely a symbolic gesture, as the IWR was
going to pass anyway.

A No vote might have made it seem like they didn’t want to limit the President’s power to wage war. But
as a symbolic vote, this clearly would have been the better and smarter thing to do. Essentially you
would be voting that Bush was going to screw up Iraq (which has certainly been proven correct in the
aftermath) and based on his prior record that was the right call. But they also knew that Bush would try
to make them look soft on that old debbil Saddam if they did.

Some of the Democrats were actually very active in the fight to make the authorization as responsible as
it was, like Kerry. For Kerry to fight like crazy to limit Bush’s war making power, and then vote NO on
his own bill, would probably have been seen in some kind of unflattering light. But, again, as I said, a
YES vote was a vote predicting that this administration wouldn’t make a hash of the situation, and that
was a very poor prediction indeed.

The good news is that in any case, there were Democrats who were watching out for the principles of
diplomacy, international law, and proof, and they made the best deal they could.

The bad news is that we have to hear about how these candidates “voted for the war” for the next seven
months.

[CWebster]

1. Did you hear any outraged Democrat ic contendor

running for the presidency making any noise about pulling funding?

Neither did I.

Those idiots who voted against the war resolution! What could they have been thinking---Kucinich, what could've he been thinking since the resolution was, after all, a good thing...sort of.


Sort of a lame excuse.

Ultimately, it was a roll of the political dice---as cynical and calculated as that. The Dems who voted against Papa's Gulf war were viewed on the losing side and DLC advised against the risk--no matter how morally reprehensible the action required.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. I agree, I think it was a political decision on Kerry's part

but I am glad he worked to make the IWR as restrictive as he could.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. You know what I find funny?

I never saw ANYONE on DU claiming this resolution did anything but give Bush a free hand in deciding to invade Iraq until AFTER it became clear that some of the people who voted for it were going to run for the Dem nomination.

It seems that the only thing that makes this resolution acceptable is the fact that some people's favourite for the nomination voted for it.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. symbolically, they were caught between a rock and a hard place

Rove put them between looking "weak on security" (sane) or "supporting the President"(wimpy).

However, I blame Kerry for letting the spin and misunderstanding on this issue get so out of hand that now people can bash him for "voting for the war" when what they actually object to, quite correctly in my opinion, is his support of the war itself, when the evidence that Saddam was a threat was not in hand.

As soon as it became clear that Saddam was not a threat, Kerry should have admitted his support for the war was a mistake, explained his vote, and moved on. That would have ended the issue, I believe, and skirting it in this way was the point behind his Yes vote on IWR. He's letting the issue live way past what it is politically expedient for him to do.

Dean's opposition to the war itself, despite what his vote would have been (I believe he probably would have voted "yes" to impose restrictions on Bush) is the correct stance, for myself, anyway.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Actually, I Did

It forced Bush to go to the UN and limit the theater of war to Iraq - which is why we are not in Iran and Syria today.

Rumsfeld in Iraq, Says Unhappy with Iran, Syria

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20030904/pl_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_arrival_dc
--
Iraq War Hawks Have Plans to Reshape Entire Mideast

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm
--

"Like Kerry, Gephardt opposed the 1991 resolution authorizing military action to drive Hussein's forces from Kuwait -- a position the Missourian now says he regrets. But he has been much more resolute in support of the White House this time than has Kerry.

When a questioner said Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House, Gephardt replied that the president had made it clear he would not accept a "two-step" process that required him to come back to Congress for authorization of force."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm
--

"I want to underscore, this Administration began with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some Democrats supported it. I would have opposed it...I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
--

"Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise...pretty much meant the end of his approach."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm
--

White House officials argue that the decision to launch intensive consultations with Congress and U.S. allies about how to bring about the administration's goal of a regime change in Baghdad was neither a dramatic change of heart nor a sudden retreat in the face of two weeks of damaging coverage about internal divisions and charges of unilateralism.

On Wednesday, the White House moved to contain the damage -- as it has done in the past. "They have consistently proven themselves willing to shift at the last moment when the tides are moving against them," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

Administration officials said yesterday there was never any serious consideration given to avoid consulting Congress, despite an interpretation by White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that Bush has all the authority he needs, from the 1991 resolution authorizing his father to go to war against Iraq, to mount a military campaign to depose Hussein.

Though some White House officials {ndash} Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, among them {ndash} were privately squeamish about the idea of taking the case on Iraq to Congress, there was no significant opposition in the White House, officials said. "The inclination has always been to consult and we gave fairly serious indications of that," said a White House official.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0906-05.htm
--

Clinton did not need Congress to go into Somalia, Haiti, or Bosnia.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

37. I have posted this OVER and OVER AGAIN!...

The resolution DID NOT FORCE BUSH TO GO TO THE UN! In fact, it did the exact OPPOSITE! It authorised him to NOT go to the UN!

Read post number 5 on this thread if you want to see the proof.

As for Clinton, that is irrelevant. Firstly, it was Bush Snr that sent troops to Somalia, and he had authorisation.

With regards to Haiti, Clinton was wrong, and sent in US armed forces without congressional authorisation. He was rebuked for this after the operation had begun. In the case of Kosovo, Clinton also was wrong and did not gain congressional authorisation, but in this case was not rebuked.

The War Powers Act allows a President to intitiate a military action, but he must get congressional approval within 60 days, or withdraw US forces from action. In both Kosoovo and Haiti, Clinton did not do so, but congress took no action against him, thus abrogating their duties under the War Powers Act. So in both of those cases the law was broken.

In this case, the law was not broken, and authorisation would have come whether Dems voted for it or not. The decision whether to vote for it then became a political one for the Dems. Not voting for it would make them seem weak on defense, voting for it clearly showed approval for an invasion of Iraq.

The fact is Kerry voted for an invasion of Iraq. The question is, did he really believe an invasion of Iraq was necessary or even morally right, or did he just do it in order to avoid looking weak on defense?

In my opinion either choice makes him not a good choice for President. It indicates that he will use force to push his own agenda, or to avoid criticism, neither of which are justifiable uses of military force in my book.

[valniel]

38. Kerry has said it again and again

The U.S. should only fight when it must, and only as a last resort!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

39. So why did he authorise Bush to go to war?

Why did he not vote against such authorisation until it included specific restrictions that required Bush to PROVE a threat, and to get UN authorisation?

Why did he vote for a resolution that gave Bush authorisation to break international law?

[Nicholas_J]

40. Sorry

You just dont get it. The act DID state that he had to either get U.N. support of PROOVE that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the U.S...It is obvious you never have raead the full act.

In order to tell the president What they reqquire a president to before congress will support the presidents use of force, they must create legislation that says, you must do X,Y,and Z.

If Congress enacts NO legislation stating ALL of the varied and myriad reasons that the president can use to justify going to war, the war the constitution is set up in such a way that if congress passes NO legislation on the use of force, the president to TOTALLY unlimited in the use of force for ANY reason he deems necessarry fo anything he chooses to do in order to defend U.S.

So lets say there is a bill that states:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(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.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htm

Fins ANYTHING in this act that states the President can get support from congress to go to war without getting the U.N. to back it. OR without provideind proof that Iraq constituted an imminent threat to U.S. security.

Each time someone calls this a vote for war, they are asserting that they beleive that George Bush either made his case to the U.N. or that HE proved irrefutably with valid evidence, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

Each time that the statement that this was a vote for war is support for Bush's actions as it stated that the person making it is agreeing that Bush made one or the other of the cases cited in the resolution

Butl lets say all of the democrats voted it down and enough republicans vote against it for it to fail.

Guess what, No act. President gets to drop nuclear weapons on Iraq and turn all of its derserts into radioactive glass, because under constitutional law, cogressional silence equals SUPPORT for the presidents actions.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

43. You should be sorry!

Fins ANYTHING in this act that states the President can get support from congress to go to war without getting the U.N. to back it. OR without provideind proof that Iraq constituted an imminent threat to U.S. security.

This is so easy it's laughable! From the resolution you so kindly posted:

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination ...

I don't know why you keep trying to argue this, because you don't have a leg to stand on... The resolution states that Bush merely has to provide "his determination" meaning 'his decision' within 48 hours of starting the war.

He doesn't need to get further authorisation, because this resolution already authorises him:

(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.

In other words, he has already been fully authorised to start the war if he so decides.

Each time someone calls this a vote for war, they are asserting that they beleive that George Bush either made his case to the U.N. or that HE proved irrefutably with valid evidence, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

No, each time someone calls this a vote for war, they are asserting that the resolution gave Bush the sole decision making ability as to whether or not that war should start, regardless of anything the UN might say.

It seems that you are arguing that this resolution DIDN'T authorise the war. If that is the case, why isn't Kerry currently making charges that the President breached the constitution and the war powers resolution?

The answer is obvious Kerry, unlike you, KNOWS that he VOTED TO AUTHORISE THE WAR!

Each time that the statement that this was a vote for war is support for Bush's actions as it stated that the person making it is agreeing that Bush made one or the other of the cases cited in the resolution

What cases? Exactly where in the resoution is there ANY requirement to make ANY case? The only requirement in the resolution is that Bush report that he has "determined" two specific things: that Iraq is a threat that only war can reduce, and that the war on terror will not be affected.

He does not have to PROVE either of these things, he merely has to say "I determine", and he can do so AFTER (within 48 hours) he has actually started the war. There is NO further authorisation needed, because he has already been authorised!

Guess what, No act. President gets to drop nuclear weapons on Iraq and turn all of its derserts into radioactive glass, because under constitutional law, cogressional silence equals SUPPORT for the presidents actions.

Actually, under the War Powers resolution silence equals refusal. To gain authorisation for war, the president must be specifically authorised, and not just with any old law, but with one that makes specific reference to the War Powers resolution and declare that the president is authorised pursuant to the War Powers resolution.

In fact, here is that specific reference, as posted by you, in the Iraq war resolution:

(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.

You really should give this up, you are making yourself look foolish.

[Nicholas_J]

32. The important part about the October Resolution

Is that it was used in case to try to get a get an injunction to stop Bush from invading Iraq, but the judge ruled it non-justicable for a number of reasons, the main one being of ripeness. That is, since Bush had not invaded yet, he had not broken any of the conditions stated in the resolution, such as getting U.N. authorization or failed to peove imminenet danger to the U.S., or the presence of weapons of mass sestruction (the Biden-Lugar amendment was redundant, as the preamble to the October Resolution gives a list of the U.N. Resolution's that Iraq was supposed to have broken and one of those amendments pertained to the requirement for the destruction of all items designated as WMD's )

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit


No. 03-1266


JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JANE DOE I, SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR., SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT, DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEY, CAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY,




Plaintiffs, Appellants,




v.




GEORGE W. BUSH, President,

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense


http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A

Right now, the case could be brought before the courts and the issue of ripeness as well as Bush's adherance to the conditions set within the resolution ruled on.

However, in the 52 times a president has used military force in the last 30 years, the court has ruled that Congress merely has the power to declare war, which is legally different than engaging use of military force (declaration of war being a change of legal relations between two nations, use of force something else), and can only set conditions for their support of a president in the use of force.

Even the War Powers Resolution of 1972 refers to what a president is obligated to do if he engages in force without Congressional Support(report to him every sixty days is about it)

So the mischaracterization of the October Resolutionas a "Vote for War" is very much a misrepresentation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

45. Do you even read this stuff? The case says the exact OPPOSITE...

of what you are claiming!

Here is final part of the ruling:

Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war.

It is true that "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power. Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238. Questions about the structure of congressional power can be justiciable under the proper circumstances. See, e.g., Clinton, 524 U.S. at 428-36; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 941-44. But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. See Orlando, 443 F.2d at 1043. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches.

Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

Read that bolded sentence again and again until you come to terms with what it says:

The resolution is an authorisation of the war!

The reason the courts can not intervene is because Congress has the power to declare war, and the president has the power to make war. The resolution declared war, and the President made it. The courts have NO authority to second guess the Congress as to its reasons for authorising the war, and so it doesn't.

If there had been requirements that were broken, then the courts could intervene, BUT THERE WEREN'T! In other words, neither the constitution nor any laws were broken by Bush and thus the only recourse the people have is their ability to vote against the people who declared and made war.

Your claims are not only WRONG, they are SO WRONG, that it seems that you MUST KNOW they are wrong, and you are just trying to mislead us. Read that sentence again:

Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war.

Case closed, the resolution that Kerry voted for authorised the war!

[ModerateMiddle]

3. Frustrating, isn't it?

I am so glad that you are seeing this evolution. It is so hard to really understand what John Kerry did in the lead up, and to hear people say that he "Vote for this war". It takes more explanation, and so many people want to see this as black and white. This is similar, though oh so much more important, than the mischaracterization of the vote to limit the tax cuts to $350 billion instead of $700 billion being "supporting the Bush tax cuts".

But that's politics. Mischaracterization of your opponents opinions and votes (if applicable) into the worst possible light, so that you can look good by way of comparison.

But it is still very frustrating to hear the mischaracterizations.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. What's weird is that everyone is accepting

"voted for the war" as short hand for supported the war. Even the candidates themselves misuse this term.

Where Kerry has a problem, for me, is his support for the war, not his vote. "supported the war" is a more accurate way to describe this.

[CWebster]

10. Still supports the war

and accuses others for not supporting the war:

As his campaign plane flew from Iowa to New Hampshire yesterday morning, Kerry told reporters, "Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong." Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who needed to be confronted, just with more diplomacy than the Bush administration tried.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/


Dean never argued against diplomacy, either.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Yeah, that's a huge mistake on Kerry's part

he should leave that issue alone - it is a loser for him.

If he keeps bringing it up, Dean will have a clear path to shove the stinking mess that is this war in his face at every opportunity, and Kerry doesn't want that.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Amazing When You Watch Quotes Cut Down And Transformed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=32795#32814

First someone posted a thread and left off half the paragraph. Now the Globe puts some of the second half in, but makes it a second paragraph.

Here's what I wrote last time:

--
"Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong," Kerry told reporters. "You can't just walk away. All along I said you had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but do it right."

This is still chopped up, but it's a little easier to see what it means. At the time of the vote, Dean supported the idea of containment - that Iraq was already under enough scrutiny and was too weak to prove a threat. It wasn't until after UNMOVIC was on the ground more than a month later, that Dean came to see the need for vigorous disarmament with the threat of force.

I'm assuming that's what Kerry meant, but it'd be nice to have the whole thing.
--

PS - When did Kerry say Dean argued against diplomacy? You have a nice way of twisting things around. Kerry was saying that Dean argued against the threat of force - which he did at the time, but later changed.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

19. Tell me, what does "You can't just walk away" mean?

When did Kerry say Dean argued against diplomacy?

So what does "You can't just walk away" mean? Does it mean "You can't just not go to war"? or does it mean "You can't just wait until there is proof of a threat"?

What does it mean?

It seems to me that he is suggesting that Dean advocated 'walking away' from Iraq, or in other words doing nothing, not even diplomacy.

Perhaps your interpretation may be different.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Doc, more context is almost usually better

but why didn't Kerry say "Dean's opposition to holding Hussein accountable was wrong"? or something to that effect.

Both Dean and Kerry were all on board for containing, inspecting, threatening, and holding Iraq/Saddam responsible, and also for gathering evidence about what the real threat was.

But saying his opposition to the war was wrong, even in that context, was either a) not what Kerry meant to say or b) a dumb thing to say.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. I Agree

I regret that he phrased it that way. But it is not that far removed from what I've been saying for a long time - that Dean's initial stance for maintaining the status quo of Iraq's containment (no-fly zones, satellites, etc.) was wrong, and Dean eventually came around to Kerry's position that active disarmament through unfettered inspections was the only viable option post-9/11. Not because he was involved with Al-Qaeda (which Kerry said no evidence suggested), but because he was such a loose cannon with a history of being violently miscalculating.

[Nicholas_J]

35. Yup

Eventually, the Europeans will be joining the U.S. in Iraq, and the public being what it is, will begin to support the war even more than it does now, so oppposition to it will appear to be completely out of place.

Those who opposed it will appear have political egg all over their faces, and those who supported going to the U.N. appear to be correct.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. Please tell me what

benefits this oh so popular war has brought us, and then weigh them with the tremendous costs, and then please tell me who has egg on their face.

Also, how are opposing the war and supporting going to the UN two different positions?

Like so many of your prophetic posts, we shall just have to wait and see on this one. I don't think you are batting 1.000, though.

Hugs, PP

[Nicholas_J]

42. Gee

Totally unexpected from a person who has changed his stance on the death penalty, social security, universal health care, cuba, was stating he would completely repeal all the Bush tax cuts and then recently stated thinking about repealing some of them.

Dean, when he says something it is set firmly in jello.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. In no way did the resolution force Bush to go to the UN.

Here is the operative part of the resolution:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(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.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution

The bolded sections speak pretty clearly. The resolution authorised Bush to use force if he determined that the use of force was necessary.

There is NO mention of having to go to the UN.

The only difference between the resolution that Bush wanted and the one that was passed is that refernce to "the region" was dropped. In other words this resolution gave Bush his Iraq war without any restriction except that it be kept in Iraq.

Every other "restriction" was based solely on Bush's decision. He could have started the war straight after this resolution was passed if he wanted to, but the protests forced him to try and seem a little less of a warmonger - after all he was thinking about 2004 too.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Huh.

How about that? I guess then the only thing Democrats were able to do is limit the scope of the action to Iraq.

Still, I would say that their pressure of Bush in the negotiations around this compromise made him reluctantly go to the UN and try to win a resolution, even if it didn't have the force of law.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. I agree that the Dems did fight to get Bush to go to the UN...

but I believe it was the multinational antiwar protests that had the largest affect. Bush saw this and realised that he was looking REALLY bad, not just at home, but overseas too. He had to head off a possible vote in the UNSC of condemnation as well as possible sanctions from countries against the war.

By appearing to give the UN one last chance, he managed to subdue just enough of the opposition that the rest of the world just sat on their hands.

Now, however, things haven't gone the way Bush was saying they would, and the benefit of the doubt has evaporated - the same nations who sat on their hands and let him get into the war, are now sitting on their hands and making him suffer for it.

In fact, they are actively tempting him to throw away his re-election chances by accepting failure and going to the UN with his tail between his legs. They are saying "Sure we'll help - as soon as you turn over control of Iraq to the UN", which would kill Bush with his base, and strengthen the Dems who were saying this all along.

Focusing on Kerry (which it seems this thread is about) he did indeed try to restrict Bush's freedom of action, but ONLY in so far as it didn't damage him politically - he had no problem calling Bush on his rush to war, but also had no problem voting for the resolution that allowed him to do so. It was politics, and as a non-US citizen, I find it disgusting that peoples lives were gambled on Kerry's election chances.

It makes me (as a non-US citizen) concerned that Kerry as President may also decide that it is politically expedient to invade MY country - even though the chances are extremely remote. But that is my take. War should never be about elections, but this one has been nothing but about elections as far as many Dems are concerned.

[CWebster]

17. Also

It was my understanding at the time that it was Powell and Blair who pushed going to the UN.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

25. True, to a point...

Blair was in the unhappy position (for him that is) of being eligble for a visit to the ICC, and all those protestors in the UK and the rest of Europe had him worried, but to see what he REALLY thought, just check out the memos that were exposed at the Hutton enquiry. In public he may have been all for going to the UN, but ONLY so that he could LIE to them.

Powell is a soldier, and as much as the pacifists may refuse to believe it, soldiers who have been in battle want to go to war about as much as they do. But, and it is a big "but", soldiers will do what they feel is necessary PROVIDED they have the support. Powell could see that the planning coming from Rumsfeld was a joke, and he wanted to get as much support for the soldiers - even if it had to come from the UN - as possible. This of course meant that he had to lie in order to try and convince the UNSC.

He would only lie as much as is necessary, and only as far as treating possibilities as certainties. For example the Niger stuff was certainly not true, so he left it out, but a lot of the other stuff was possibly true and he had no problem giving it an air of certainty if it would help save a few soldiers lives or enhance the chances of this war going well.

I think you may find that one of the reasons he has pretty much dropped out of the limelight is because he feels bad that he wasn't able to get the troops more support.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. It's sad when you sell your soul to the Bush Family Evil Empire

maybe Powell should have "felt bad" enough to expose this horrible landgrab for the clusterf*ck is was while there was still time to save more than just a few lives. Oh well.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. It is with deep, nourishing Schadenfreude that I

watch Dim Son twist and writhe in the dilemma he fought so hard to create for himself. The UN should put the screws to him but good.

The only thing which dampens my enjoyment is that real people are being killed while Bush figures out the most politically expedient way to save his political hide.

I do disagree with Kerry's subsequent support for the war, which I think was clearly the wrong position for him to take, politically, legally, and morally.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. Bush is caught in the perfect 'Catch 22'!

If he doesn't go to the UN, things stay the same or get worse in Iraq, and more US troops die with no end in sight, then he will lose the support of the centre.

If he DOES go to the UN, then he will have to accept UN control, he will lose major contracts that have been given to his supporters, and he will confirm to his extreme right base that he is a "UN/NWO" lackey.

Either way, he loses votes, but the latter way is the one where he will lose the most votes, so I doubt we will be seeing any change in Iraq before the election, unless the rest of the world decides that getting rid of Bush is not as important as helping the Iraqis.

Whoever wins the Dem nomination, they HAVE to nail Bush on this. They have to hammer him so hard that it will be LONG time before any right winger risks what Bush went through after this fiasco.

Its sad that this war is politics now, but I really feel that this is the new "Cold War" except it is the battle between the enlightened anti-war progressive people, and the unenlightened regressives led by Bush.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Yep.

Only "good" thing in IWR was the limiting of the scope to Iraq. I guess we should be "grateful" for that.

[polpilot]

9. Carte Blanche. Maybe since Kerry believes Chimpy is 'a good man

trying to do do things' he believed enough to give him his vote.

Dean '04....

[ModerateMiddle]

16. Yes, right, of course

Kerry support Bush all the way, right?

This is a foolish mischaracterization, and you ought to be ashamed.

[polpilot]

20. Kplongco. Wouldn't YOU support 'a good man trying to do good things'?

Kerry: 'Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong.' When did Kerry say that? Yesterday.

Kerry supports Chimpy, gave his vote for war to Chimpy. The result, of course, was death and destruction and now, today, he supports Chimp's War and John Kerry's War and SAYS 'Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong. Clean and clear to most.

Dean '04...

[ModerateMiddle]

29. There is a huge difference

between "a good man trying to do good things" and a "good man DOING good things". Bush is clearly incapable of actually DOING good things with his presidency, and Kerry is clear that he disagrees with nearly everything Bush has done as President.

Howard Dean is clearly a good man trying to do good things as well - and his saying he will balance the budget within three years is an example of that. He believes it is a good thing. I strongly disagree with him on it. But that doesn't mean I think Dean has evil intentions for this country, I simply believe the results would be disasterous.

Chimpy, as much as I despise him and everything he's done to my country, doesn't have ill intentions for this country. He believes that his macho bullshit actually makes this country stronger.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. that's an interesting take on Bush's motivations

I like the idea that one day, his little brain is going to connect the dots and he will realize just how evilly he was played by Cheney.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

15. Going to the UN

was going through the motions.

Who didn't know that?

In some ways I respect Lieberman more because he stands behind his position and takes the heat. Gephardt made a serious blunder when he tried to dispose of the issue by giving them the ball. Kerry, should've known better, but he couldn't resist the opportunity to grandstand on both his anti-war past and his military record.

Quite honestly, I don't like him. I don't like the packaged way he looks, I don't like the pretention way he acts, with his pompous pronouncements and lack of consideration for other speakers. I don't like his self-impressed mannnerisms and the limp and affected way he raises his fist. It is too weird when he peppers his remarks constantly with "ladies and gentlemen" like some kind of out of touch freakshow barker.

He is ripe for the plucking and they will have a field-day lampooning him. In tonight's debate I will try my best not to allow my bias to intefere. I will try.

[ModerateMiddle]

18. You probably won't succeed.

I can't tolerate listening to Lieberman, so even if he is saying something with which I agree - I tune him out. I'm sorry you feel that way about Kerry. I can only manage to continue to listening to Dean because he might well be the nominee and I find him a curiousity.

But I understand that some folks just grate on some folks in ways they can't overcome. I guess that's life.

[CWebster]

21. Still

I'll try (but then I tried last time). Maybe if he didn't keep on doing and saying things that make it so much harder(probably the root of the problem).

[polpilot]

23. Out of Touch Freakshow Barker!!! v. Chimpy The Monkey Man.

O.K. That was fun!!!!!!!!!

Dean '04...

[disgruntella]

34. burma shave! nt

[GOPBasher]

41. Exactly!

That's what I keep saying. Bush already had the power to go to war against Iraq, because of the War Powers Act. So what is the big deal about a vote that gives him power to do what he already has the power to do?

[tedoll78]

44. I love how..

The candidates who 'voted for the war' now whine about how the Bush administration didn't do Condition A, Condition B, etc before beginning military action. Why did they not insist that those Conditions were required in the resolution? Instead, they signed a blank check.