3 GIs were killed today in Iraq that would still be alive if not for IWR

[IndianaGreen]

3 GIs were killed today in Iraq that would still be alive if not for the IWR vote. None of the Democrats that voted for IWR, supposedly to force Bush to go to the UN, ever called for Bush's impeachment the moment our troops crossed into the Iraq. Instead they stood there waiving the flag and cheering as the United States joined the list of other nations that started wars of aggression against other nations: Imperial Japan, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, etc.

Defeat at the polls is a rather small price to pay by those that stood with Bush in the Rose Garden in support of his war plans. No one gets a "pass" for actions that resulted (as of today) in 502 American dead and 2,893 American wounded, and over 10,000 dead and wounded Iraqis. We should not forget either the 96 dead from other nations, including 56 from the UK. (Source: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)

The antiwar vote will not transfer to those that voted for IWR. We still have Dennis Kucinich, and if he drops out, we have Wes Clark as of last resort. When it comes to campaign ribbons, Clark has more rows than Kerry and, unlike Kerry, Clark does not have to do penance for the IWR.

There are no profiles in courage among the crop of candidates that voted for IWR, John Kerry included, as the following excerpt from an essay about John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage is quick to remind us:

John F. Kennedy hoped that each person who read this book and learned about courageous people in public life would realize that when a person faces a difficult decision which is bound to be unpopular, they are not alone. Each person must stand up for what they believe in and be willing to take the consequences, if they wanted to make the country a better place to live.

<snip>

None of the subjects were portrayed as perfect or beyond reproach. Kennedy showed very strongly, in fact, the ethical ambivalence of some of the classic figures in American history in this work. The point he sought to make is not about how heroes were made of different stuff than others. This book is about how human beings can, in a time of moral crisis, find the courage to follow their own truth in the face of opposition.

<snip>

Finally, courage on a different aspect was the courage to save the President, by Edmund G. Ross. He was constantly tortured and pressured by the press, public, and the political scene during the impeachment hearings of President Andrew Johnson over the Tenure of Office Acts. Finally, it was time to vote for or against impeachment. Twenty-four “guilty” verdicts were pronounced by the time the Chief Justice reached Ross. He knew the rest of the votes were practically certain “guiltiness.” Only his one vote was needed to obtain the thirty-six votes needed to impeach the President of the United States. He responded in a unhesitating voice, “Not guilty.” Ross later noted: ..I almost literally looked down into my open grave. Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth...” (pg. 118)

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/10/bgt358.shtml

A "Yes" vote on the Iraq War Resolution was as popular a vote as a vote to impeach President Andrew Johnson. A "No" vote on the Iraq War Resolution was the unpopular vote, yet it was the correct vote and a vote that has stood the test of time. Who among us can forget Senator Byrd's powerful speech in the Senate Chamber warning us of the consequences of giving Bush a blank check to war? Who can forget Byrd's dire warnings about the damage to the Constitution's checks and balances if Congress were to abrogate its war-making powers to the Executive Branch?

Among the Democratic candidates, only Dennis Kucinich voted against IWR. Dennis was criticized and marginalized by the Democratic establishment for his vote. Dennis was portrayed as unpatriotic by the 24/7 media. While other candidates spoke against this war, most notably Howard Dean, the fact is that Kucinich was the only one to vote against it. Kucinich's antiwar vote was a profile into his own courage to stand against the leaders of his own party, the polls and the pundits, in order to take a principled stand for America.

Caroline Kennedy, President Kennedy's daughter, quoted her father at the end of an essay she wrote about the Profiles in Courage Award:

My father ended his book with the following words that bear repeating now:

"In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience -- the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men -- each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient -- they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul." -- John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

-- CAROLINE KENNEDY October 1, 2001

http://www.innerself.com/Miscellaneous/kennedy03273.htm

[AP]

1. Would they be alive if Biden-Lugar passed?

No? Then who do you support. Dean supported Biden-Lugar.

[IndianaGreen]

6. I opposed Biden-Lugar

I also opposed the no-fly zones over Iraq which were never sanctioned by the US.

[Egnever]

7. Yes they would

Biden lugar was based on wmd and the removal of them. There are no WMD none and this war would either never have hapened because of it or would be over and we would be pulling out allready . Not to mention bush would be hanging from the nearest tree because he fabricated WMD evidence in order to justify his war.

[jpgray]

20. You are wrong--go to my Biden/Lugar thread below and read it

It provides for "economic and political reconstruction", such as we are seeing today.

[Egnever]

24. That means nothing. Its an excuse to try to justify the IWR votes

Do you deny that had buysh gone in under biden lugar he would be in a world of hurt today?

Are you seriously trying to sugest he would be changing the rational for going in as he is trying to do now if he had gone in under biden lugar?

If in fact sadam did have WMD and did in fact refuse to destroy them after biden lugar had passed we would have been justified in going in. However the facts remain there were no wmd.

Had we gone in under biden lugar bush would be finished now instead of wrigling arround saying its a good thing we went cause sadam was a bad guy. He would be being brought up for impeachment for falsifying evidence to justify an illeagle war instead of prancing arround in a flight suit.

Biden lugar and the IWR are two entirely different animals despite the similarities.

Just ask kerry he prefered it or beter yet ask bush he refused it because it tied his hands.

there is no rational for juastifying the IWR it was a cave by the dems to get the issue off the table in time for the election.

I will never forgive them for that ever!

[jpgray]

26. Have you read both Biden Lugar and the IWR?

*Both* require Bush to certify that Iraq is continuing to attempt to obtain WMD. That's it for evidence. Neither even requires a resolution such as 1441, in fact.

The big bonus of Biden/Lugar is that it clearly defines the authorization as for enforcing UN resolution 687. It still provides for the "economic and political reconstruction", and it still allows the president unilateral authority for war.

[Egnever]

31. Many times

And again the kety to the difference is limiting the actions to wmd.

That is THE difference, not the only Difference but THE difference. Again If we went in under biden lugar instead of IWR we would be in a very differnet place right now and Bushes feet would be being held to the fire right now. There would have been no pulling the inspectors out before they had confirmed the existance of the WMD or there would have been hell to pay for it.

Instead we got a broad general resolution that allows bush to reframe the justification for going in.

[jpgray]

36. Again, I disagree

Both resolutions insist that all means are exhausted for PEACEFUL resolution towards disarming Saddam. That includes inspections.

The only way to stop Bush on this would be on limiting his authorization to use force. Bush didn't care about the requirements of either resolution, and Congress hasn't called him to task on the requirements he broke with HR 110. Why should they call him to task on a resolution with the SAME REQUIREMENTS?

Both required him to certify that he had exhausted all peaceful means, and that Iraq was in violation of 687, 1441 et al. To Congress' satisfaction, apparently, he did both things.

We would be in the same place with Biden. Once the use of troops was authorized, how would things have turned out differently? Answer that question. Because without a doubt the buildup to authorization would have been the same, even though what the authorization is FOR is different.

edit: clarity, toning it down a little. Sorry if I was inflammatory.

[Egnever]

41. Nice edit!

Again you choose to ignore the meat of the difference. We may or may not hjave gone in anyway, Given bushes clear desire to do so we MIGHT have however we would be in an entirely different place at this point had we gone in.

Bush knew this which is why he refused to go with Biden /lugar would he have stuck his neck out and forged ahead without knowing the proof that there were WMD would have to be there after we got in?

Perhaps we will never know. but he did not refuse to take that as an option for no reason. I think its very obvious at this point why.

[jpgray]

42. Okay, I'll try to explain my view clearly and not hotheadedly.

From reading the resolutions and the various interpretations, here is what I get.

Bush was required to certify that he had exhausted all diplomacy AND that Saddam sought to obtain WMDs in both resolutions to get the authorization to use US troops. He was also required to attempt to get a resolution from the UN condemning Saddam's behavior (such as 1441), but barring that he could declare Saddam a "threat" to ourselves or our allies and have the authorization anyway. This was also in both.

So it is my contention that under either Biden or the IWR, we would have had Bush with an authorization.

Now proceeding from there our troops invade Iraq, oust Saddam and enter into this "reconstruction" phase. The main difference I can see is that Biden requires a report on reconstruction plans, whereas IWR requires him to certify that he will protect the welfare and infrastructure of the Iraqi people. So a report and a certification--I don't know which one is "better", but we'll say the report because it's more substantial.

Now. We find that Bush has lied about the WMDs. That hurts him in both, and Congress should call him on it (various members have). We knew that Bush did not exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the war, that hurts him in both, and Congress should have called him on it (again, various members have).

So I agree that Biden points out his dishonesty and failure to adhere to the requirements BETTER than the IWR. Moreover, Biden is less likely to be used to justify other regional conflicts.

However, Bush could have followed every step he did in the buildup with Biden, and the only significant difference would have been a few more reports to Congress. Biden is better than the IWR, but in my opinion it would have led us here. Maybe Bush would be more vulnerable, but it would have led us here.

[Egnever]

44. Possibly

We will never know.

He would have been setting himself up for the fall with b/l where he has a lot more wiggle room with the IWR. Another key to b/l is it doesnt authorize regime change where IWR.

I agree they are similar bills and that bush could have gone ahead under either one. However of the two had he gone under b/l he would have been held a lot more responsible for his actions than he is curently held and because of this I believe it would have given him pause before rushing in. He certainly could have gone ahead with his plans under either bill but would he have under b/l ? This is something we will never know.

[jpgray]

45. Okay, I agree

Sorry again for getting a little tense. No harm done, I hope. :hi:

My final word on this is:

Up to this point, B/L and IWR would have *similar* results. For overall accountability B/L is slightly superior, and for clear definition of the mission (i.e. limiting authorization to Iraq), B/L is much superior.

edit: clear things up

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Simply false. It's Bush's fault for not following the resolution.

Bush lied before the invasion about WMDs and whether Saddam was a threat. Bush lied in the Presidential Determination required in the IWR when he said further diplomatic efforts would not protect the security of the United States.

Bush's criminal acts are responsible for those deaths, and the IWR leaves him vulnerable for prosecution as a war criminal.

[jpgray]

3. Sadly, Biden/Lugar would have killed them as well

In my thread below, I examined the two resolutions. While it does limit the authorization to disarming Iraq, it provides for "political and economic reconstruction", such as that which caused these deaths. So those who supported Biden/Lugar do not have moral superiority in this case.

edit: If you have info to the contrary, please share it in the thread below. I'm trying to get a good handle on Biden/Lugar. The full text of both HR 110 and Biden/Lugar is there, with some comments from me.

[kayob1]

4. Thank you

Great post.

[Cocoa]

5. Bush would have gone to war without the IWR

His lawyer was making the case for it in summer of 2002.

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. You're right.

I thought the IWR vote was wrong, but Bush would have invaded any way, so it's not a 'litmus test' issue with me.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The point is that our Democrats should have all opposed Bush

and not stood alongside with him in the Rose Garden. By the way, not shown in this photo is my own Senator Evan Bayh, current Chair of the DLC. Bayh called the SWAT team to forcibly remove a group of peaceful demonstrators that had come to his office to petition him to vote against IWR. I will point out that on that same day, Republican Senator Lugar had a senior member of his staff meet with a similar group of demonstrators. The meeting ended on a cordial note, and there was no SWAT team. Why is it that the Chair of the DLC treats dissenters like criminals while a Republican treats them like citizens?

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution



President George W. Bush along with bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate announced the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States," President Bush said during the announcement in the Rose Garden, Wednesday, October 2, 2002. White House photo by Paul Morse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html

[Cocoa]

16. you just said the IWR killed those people

now you're saying it was about opposing Bush. Two very different things.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Spare me the campaign rhetoric and spin

that have done so much damage already to the Democratic Party. I am sticking to the issues!

[Cocoa]

21. what campaign has said that?

I don't think any pro-IWR candidate has made the point that I'm making, that Bush would have gone to war even without the IWR.

[bluestateguy]

9. Bush would have gone to war anyway

He only went to Congress as a matter of "courtesy". I opposed the IWR, and I'm disappointed that Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt voted for it, but in the end Bush would have started a war anyway.

[the populist]

10. Ridiculous.

When the vote passed, Dean was not anti-war at all. If he had been forced to make an actual decision like the Congressmen and Senators he probably would have voted for it. He supported Biden-Lugar for Christ's sake.

If you're going to make an issue out of this war, vote Kucinich, who is a man of integrity who would (and has, actually) sacrifice his political career for Democratic principles. This exploitation of the war by Dean, who is no more anti-war than Clark, is disingenuous.

PS Why is it that it only matters when US soldiers get killed? How about the dead Iraqi civilians like the ones who get fired at for protesting?

[IndianaGreen]

14. You obviously did not read my post

but are only responding to the subject line.

[Raya]

11. Disgraceful Use of Blood of Brave Men for Political Smear Campaign

SHAME SHAME SHAME.

For many noble Democrats the IWR was not a vote for war but an attempt to stop war and get Bush to go to the U.N.

Dean brings shame on all by using the IWR as a wedge issue for
his personal political gain.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Many veterans, men and women alike, are opposed to this war

[pasadenaboy]

17. The Shame

is anyone who voted for this sham resolution.

The even bigger shame is anyone who voted for the resolution, than voted against the $87M to rebuild Iraq.

Talk about voting by sticking your finger to the wind and seeing which way the wind blows?

And by the way, to say people voted for the IWR to get Bush to go to the UN, why did Kennedy, Byrd, and over half of the other Senate democrats vote against it? Were they opposed to the UN? No, they knew what it meant to be a democrat, and they knew that Bush was going to war, and didn't want him to do it with democratic support, unlike Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman.

[Cha]

18. Dean doesn't "bring shame" on

anyone. Dean is a person who stood up and shouted against the Iraqi Invasion.

There was no need to invade Iraq.

[sandnsea]

32. Thank you

Maybe if Howard Dean had really been hammering away at Bush for the last year, and the other candidates could have done that instead of fending off Howard's attacks; they could have put enough public pressure on Bush to actually GO to the UN and FIX Iraq like he should have all along. The politicization of the war vote has been a disgrace.

[Cocoa]

34. yep, that would have done the most good

Kennedy started doing that right away. When the Niger uranium story broke, he tried leveraging that to put that pressure on Bush. People were demanding the dems use that story to hurt Bush, but Kennedy was trying to use it to make the situation in Iraq better.

If all the candidates sounded a focused note on this, it might have happened and those soldiers that died today might be alive.

[sandnsea]

35. All but one did that

That's when my hatred for Howard Dean developed. Right then and there. He used it for his own campaign. Nobody else did that.

[Cha]

15. That's right! And now it's 500 Americans and

how many Iraqis?

I'm wondering how well they sleep at night knowing what they could have at least Tried to prevent.

[jpgray]

22. Didn't Dean and Kerry follow virtually the same path on Iraq?

Both made antiwar speeches, yet both supported a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go in unilaterally. The major differences between Biden/Lugar and IWR were these:

Biden/Lugar tied the authorization to UN res. 687, whereas the IWR tied it to multiple resolutions dealing with Iraq, and the nebulous war on terror.

Biden/Lugar requires a report concerning how other nations will assist the US, and a report on how we will protect our allies in the region.

Biden/Lugar requires Congress be informed fully and currently on matters dealing with the resolution.

The key thing to remember is that the *requirements* for the authorization for force were largely identical--some of the terms for the use of that force are the most significant differences. Also, Biden/Lugar provided for this "reconstruction" period as well, so we would still be here under its guidance.

Bush was not limited in any way by Biden/Lugar in terms of unilateral use of force. If I interpreted something wrong, please let me know. The full texts of both resolutions are in my thread below.

I learned this both through reading the resolutions themselves and by reading various interpretations. So while Biden/Lugar and the IWR are not the same, in terms of where we'd be at this moment, they'd have us in the same place.

Kerry made an antiwar speech and then voted for the IWR. Dean said both before and after the vote was cast that he supported Biden/Lugar. To me that is pretty similar.

[MoonRiver]

23. We need to remember that IWR vote when we choose our candidates.

But, if an IWR 'yes' voter who has qualifications equal to or above another candidate, who didn't have to vote or voted 'no' to IWR, and, has a better chance of defeating the most destructive and vile, not to mention illegitimate, regime in American history, IMO, the choice is obvious.

[IndianaGreen]

25. The choice is not to reward a pro-IWR candidate with the nomination

We have Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, and Wes Clark. They have the 3 Senators and one Congressman that voted for IWR.

We have to make sure that one of our guys gets the nomination, that's all there is to this!

[MoonRiver]

27. I agree, with a caveat.

Getting GWB out of his stolen W.H. is more important than the IWR vote, imho.

[IndianaGreen]

30. A change in policy is more important than a change in personnel

How many times have we seen managers get canned, and replaced with someone that offers only a fresh face and not a change in policy?

We are not safer with a Democrat in the White House if we still end up with PATRIOT Act on the books, and a war and occupation raging in Iraq.

Simply replacing an "R" with a "D" is not good enough. A Democratic President will also have to produce substantive changes, from the outright repeal of PATRIOT to a total and immediate US withdrawal from Iraq.

Don't turn the Iraq war into a Democratic war!

[Cocoa]

37. the Attorney General is more important than the law

Ashcroft is doing much more to violate our rights than the Patriot Act ever could.

[IndianaGreen]

39. If the law says that Jews have to wear yellow Stars of David

it doesn't matter who the Attorney General is!

Not too long ago, the law said that people of color could not marry a white person, or sit anywhere they chose in a cafeteria.

PATRIOT Act undermined all of our civil liberties, and together with the PATRIOT II provisions that were sneaked in as part of recent legislation, it has given the President dictatorial powers.

Only a tyrant has the power to suspend all Constitutional rights for individuals on his own authority. Bush already has such power. All Bush has to do is to declare you or me an "enemy combatant" and we will both disappear into the Gulag.

Do yourself a big favor and tonight, instead of posting in DU, go to Blockbusters and rent the film Judgment at Nuremberg. One of the characters is a judge, played by Burt Lancaster.

[jpgray]

28. A pro Biden/Lugar candidate would have us in this same position

Bush could have followed his actions to a "t" on Biden-Lugar and still we would be in this *exact* situation. So how is Kerry's support for IWR culpable, and Dean's support for Biden benign?

[Egnever]

33. Flat out WRONG

Had we gone in under biden lugar with the goal being the removal of WMD we would have went in under false pretenses with IWR we dont need WMD to justify it.

Bush would be counting the days to his ousting right now instead of spining our reasons for going in had we gone in under biden lugar

[jpgray]

38. Again, I disagree

The goal at all times, ostensibly, was the removal of WMD. Why would Bush send Powell out to drum up UN support? All he needed was the authorization. Both bills REQUIRE him to show that Saddam is in violation of 687 et al, get a resolution such as 1441 and that gives him authorization.

Once Bush has authorization, the two resolutions would play out identically. Biden Lugar mandates 687 as the reason for the authorization, and Bush has played that up to this date. The troops still would have gone in, the reconstructions STILL would have occurred. Once the authorization was his, the chips would have fallen in the same places under Biden or the IWR.

You are arguing that under Biden they would have held him responsible for no WMDs, no inspections, etc. THE SAME PROVISIONS are in the IWR, and they have NOT held him responsible. He is required in BOTH to certify that Saddam "seeks to obtain" WMDs and that "all peaceful means will be exhausted". No one has called him to task for violating the IWR, why should they on Biden Lugar?

edit: toning it down a little here too, sorry again.

[Cocoa]

29. Dean and Clark could turn out to be hawks

Voting to punish, instead of really thinking about what the candidates would be like in office, is dangerous, imo.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Voting against those that supported this war is the only way to cleanse

this party from those that have been kow-towing to Bush since 9/11. It is a shame that none of the Democratic leaders in Congress have called for the repeal of PATRIOT Act, or for the impeachment of Bush for his "miserable failure" during the events leading to 9/11, and for misleading Congress and the country in taking us down the path to war in Iraq.

A political party is either in opposition or in coalition. You either support the government, in which case you are a de facto coalition, or you oppose the government. To do neither is to turn the Democrats into a club, like the Rotary, and no longer a political party.

[mb7588a]

40. Isn't it blatantly clear?

Bush don't need no stinkin' Congress. Duh.

[corporatewhore]

43. They will continue to die under occupation

[Monte Carlo]

47. That is a VERY big 'If'.

Maybe I'm not reading my crystal ball correctly, but with the shockingly-aggressive push made by the Bush Administration to go to war immediately, I'm not convinced that act of Congress would have been the end of it. Bush's assertiveness caught everyone offguard.

[ClarkGraham2004]

48. I have no doubt Bush would have gone to war anyway.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Did any of the pro-IWR candidates attack Bush for going to war?

No, they didn't! They were there cheering alongside the Republicans. It wasn't until it became obvious that General Shinseki's prediction about the cost of occupying Iraq were correct, that this lot decided to criticize Bush. What is significant is that they didn't attack for his policy of preemptive war, but for the tactics. They chided Bush for not planning for a postwar Iraq, while remaining silent or even supportive of Bush's criminal attack on Iraq.