2000 dead in Iraq: Kucinich & Kerry got it right, but sadly Dean didn't

[onenote]

Kerry, Kucinich and Dean have all issued statements reflecting on the fact that the number of American military personnel killed in the Iraq war has reached 2000. Kerry and Kucinich made respectful statements that paused to note the milestone, but did not treat this particular death as sadder or worse than any of the others that came before it or any of those that will follow.

Dean, on the other hand, blew it. He started out attacking Bush for not making a statement, which makes the 2000th death seem like a hook for a political statement. More egregiously, he referred to today as one of the "saddest days" in the course of the war. That was just stupid. Was it any less sad when the 1999th soldier died. Or the 391st or the 3rd? Will it be less sad tomorrow when the 2001st or 2002nd death occurs? Does sadness somehow grow when its a round number? What message does he send to the families of those who died before or after 2000 when he calls today one of the saddest days. What he should've said is that they are all sad. And will continue to be sad until we find a way to bring our troops home.

Sometimes I think Dean is great. Other times he seems to be completely tone-deaf.

onenote

[Jacobin]

1. Kerry voted for the IWR and he GOT IT RIGHT?

I think I typed in the wrong url

[LittleClarkie]

16. I believe the OP is speaking of statements being right

not original stances.

Too bad Dean never had to hang by his original stance, considering he didn't have to carve it in stone by voting for or against.

But anyway, the OP is speaking about how this particular milestone is being greeted by Dean, Kerry and Kucinich. He considered K and K's statements to be on the mark, and Dean's to be off the mark.

While the thread involves both Kerry and the war, it doesn't seem to be addressing the IWR.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

30. So, words are better than action.

Groovy. :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

33. No, but "2000 soldiers dead" is "2000 soldiers dead" and the

"IWR" is the "IWR". One is not better than the other. But "2000 soldiers dead" is not the "IWR", though I can see why someone might see it as related.

When the OP said that Kerry was right on, he meant today, in his words, in his statement. He did not say that Kerry was right over two years ago, about the IWR.

That is what is known as a tangent. If you want to talk about the tangent, then perhaps another thread is in order.

I don't think we need to hear about IWR in every thread that mentions Kerry's name, as if we'd never heard of it before.

Reid voted for the war, but IWR isn't mentioned in every one of his threads. Why is that?

[niceypoo]

88. Dean was against the war from the start. Kerry voted FOR it

you got your names mixed up....

[LittleClarkie]

93. Then why does he say nearly the same thing in his statement

about finishing the job?

And for the millionth time, Kerry voted to get the inspectors back in. And they got back in, so it worked. But Bush didn't care about what the inspectors were going to find.

[MH1]

24. Yep, you typed the wrong url.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Bashing all the Dems who voted for the IWR is playing the rethug's hand for them (you might want to check the rollcall and the cosponsors on that bill). But then, why should we wise up now, huh.

(edited for typo)

[LittleClarkie]

38. Kerry voted for the IWR!? Why didn't anybody tell me?! When did that

happen?!

Two and a half years ago

Oh ..two and a half years ago?

Yep

And folks are just getting mad now?

No, they've been griping about it ever since.

Oh, they've been mad all along. I see.

Yep

So Kerry was the deciding vote, right?

Nope. Other folks voted for it too, but they don't get NEAR the attention for it. The Minority Leader for one.

Uh huh. Isn't there anything else to be mad at, or is that it? You know, like the President and such?

You'd think so.

Poor guy. Surely he's done good stuff since then.

I imagine he has. You'll have to go elsewhere to find out about it though.

Bummer. I thought, since this was the Democratic Undergroud and all, we'd be kinda friendly toward Dems. No?

Bwahahahahahahahaha... coff... coff.. bahahahahaha! Ahem, no.

[MH1]

45. LOL

You are so right.

[karynnj]

48. His statement is respectful, beautifully written and caring

He voted for the IWR to get the inspectors in - they were allowed in and permitted to do very invasive inspections and to destroy missiles. This SHOULD have averted the war that Bush intended when he put troops in the gulf in summer 2002, but IN SPITE OF THE CONDITIONS of the IWR - not because of the resolution, Bush invaded in March 2003.

I don't know why someone on DU would choose to absolve Bush and instead blame Kerry - who if he were President would not have invaded. But it's your choice - I choose to assign blame where it is due. Bush is quilty, not Kerry

[IndianaGreen]

80. If Kerry cared about the troops, he would be calling for them to come home

NOW. He would also be calling for hearings on the Downing Street memos, like Conyers has, and he would be calling for Bush's impeachment for the war.

Who can forget Kerry's suck up congratulatory message to Bush when the tanks rolled into Baghdad.

[politicasista]

82. He wants them to come home just as bad as we all do

No politican is going to say or tell you everything you want to hear.

[elperromagico]

92. Dean hasn't called for the troops to come home NOW either.

He's spoken out as recently as April against immediate withdrawal, stating that "Now that we're there {in Iraq}, we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050516/kucinich

What is Dean's position on hearings into the DSM? What is his position on impeachment? I ask because I can't find a stated position from the Chairman on either.

My point here is not to attack Howard Dean. Yes, Dean opposed the war from the start. Yes, Kerry voted for IWR. But when it comes to dealing with the war now that it's been going on for over two years, their positions are not terribly different.

And while we're at it, a DUer recently posted a reply he received from Representative Kucinich in which Kucinich stated even he did not support impeachment. I'd give you the link but archive searching is shut down at the moment.

[elperromagico]

71. Here's a question:

President Howard Dean comes into office 20 January 2005 and inherits Bush's war in Iraq. What does he do there that President John Kerry wouldn't have done?

[Stockholm]

90. What you said.

No one gets it right until they tell the truth about the war and their role in it.

[Catch22Dem]

2. Oh man, put your fire suit on

I agree with you though. This milestone is no less sad than any other death in this bullshit war.

[madfloridian]

6. Then you miss the point entirely.

.

[Catch22Dem]

22. Perhaps I did

But no death should be highlighted over any other just because it's a "milestone."

[onenote]

7. If people want to attack me that's fine

But I'm not budging on this one. The fact that we've lost 2000 is notable. But calling today one of the saddest days reflects a lack of sensitivity to the fact that every single one of the deaths that have occurred in Iraq was unnecessary as is every death there that is yet to occur. The point shouldn't be that today is bad. Its that every day is bad.

onenote

[Mass]

3. Good luck.

[blm]

4. But, that's what Dean's job entails. He's actually doing his job.

It's a political job and requires hitting low sometimes so your candidates and your lawmakers don't have to.

It's not easy to hit the tone exactly right all the time in a political position.

[onenote]

9. this isn't one where you should swing wildly

This is one where you should be sending the message to the country --the moms,dads, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives of everyone fighting in Iraq and of everyone who has lost a loved one over there -- that we care about every single one of them and that its not some "numbers game" to us.

onenote

[blm]

12. I just don't think his swing is as wild as you think it is.

I do understand what you're saying, but I'm just not reading it as harsh as you are.

[madfloridian]

5. That is his job....to attack. He pointed out Bush's lack of caring.

On the other hand, Kerry voted for the war and would still vote for it again.

Are you guys having fun here yet?

[Mass]

8. Dont make accusations you cant prove please.

Kerry voted for IWR, true. How do you know he would still vote for it?

My bigger pb with Dean's statement is that he still thinks there can be a victory in Iraq, but wont tell us what it is.

[NYCGirl]

10. Well, he said he would still vote for it during the presidential campaign.

Even knowing what we know now.

It's up to Bush and his folks to define what victory is. It's THEIR WAR.

[Mass]

15. So why is Dean asking for victory?

Out now.

For the rest, that was more than one year ago. Even if I trust this report from the WaPo, this still does not mean that he would still vote like that NOW.

[NYCGirl]

17. If you actually read the entire statement, Dean asks Bush to DEFINE

VICTORY.

[Mass]

19. Sorry, there is no victory possible in Iraq. Out Now,

[NYCGirl]

20. Yes, I personally believe that too. But it's important to put this

administration on the defensive by pointing out their fatal mistakes and asking them to explain themselves.

Edited to add: That's the job of the DNC.

[Demobrat]

13. The last time Kerry was asked

if he would still vote for it he said yes. Until we hear otherwise we have no reason to believe he will ever admit he was wrong.

[madfloridian]

14. He said so on TV.

It was loud and clear. That was near the election time last year. Today? I have not heard his stance today.

[Mass]

18. So, why are you saying he would say that today.

And why is Dean asking for victory? There is no victory in Iraq.

[madfloridian]

21. Can you read between the lines on that? Subtle jab at Bush's failure

He is pointing out there has been no success.

[Mass]

23. No kidding. I still agree with the OP on these statements.

(and disagree with Kerry on the IWR vote, BTW, but it is irrelevant to what the OP was saying).

[msongs]

27. ONE of...one of....ONE of....one of.... get it?

ONE of....as in of all the saddest days, this is ONE of them, not the ONLY saddest day.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[LittleClarkie]

31. Who's "you guys"

The thread doesn't seem to have been started by one of the "usual suspects."

So, for some folks, not everything out of Dean's mouth is golden. Not everything out of Kerry's mouth is golden either. Nor Cindy Sheehan's.

The OP said that he normally supports Dean, but today's statement hit him wrong. He said it in a respectful tone. That's not bashing, that's criticism. I don't see what could be wrong with that.

Reasonable criticism of Kerry would (hopefully) be treated the same way by me.

What you just trotted out was not reasonable, however. I could be unreasonable about Dean and trot out what he said when the war started. But you'd know better what Dean really meant, just as Kerry folks know what Kerry really meant.

Do you think we could finally drop the primary era bullshit? Please?

[madfloridian]

35. What's happening now has little to do with the primaries.

I am very sorry that not only are the primaries replayed with all their little petty hatreds, but now there is another player involved. Progressive groups have decided there will be a 3rd party.

If no one "bullshits" me, then I don't do it to them.

I wish people would keep count of how many attack posts there are on the Democrats and the DNC as indictments are getting closer. It is truly sad.

You feel free to post just anything you want to post. I doubt you will convince people of much right now. But if you feel better, do it.

[madfloridian]

39. In fact you described how I feel.

"So, for some folks, not everything out of Dean's mouth is golden. Not everything out of Kerry's mouth is golden either. Nor Cindy Sheehan's."

See, you are right...but lately there appears to be no middle ground. There are several people who forget that hubby and I supported Kerry and often donated to him. We worked for him, and we were sincere.

Many here think I am pro-war because I think Cindy Sheehan is in need of a little caution. I am very anti-war.

And I most certainly am critical of Dean when he deserves it, and he may soon get some serious flak if he goes along with the selling out of women and their rights.

There is just no moderation here anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

41. No there isn't. It's very binary.

Which reminds me too much of the freepers. Either fully for, or fully against, with no middle ground.

I argued yesterday against just what you're talking about re: Cindy, about folks thinking you're pro-war if you say one mumbling word in opposition to something she said or did. I don't approve of anyone being told to shut up, and I've seen that on Cindy threads.

You don't have to be against someone or even what they stand for to say that you don't like something that came out of their mouths. They're not God.

No moderation, indeed.

[nankerphelge]

11. Every day with more dead...

is sadder than the day before. Hence, it was one of the saddest days. The grounds for critiquing Dean's statements seem pretty thin here. I'm not saying everything he says is great, but I don't agree that he blew it by any stretch of the imagination.

[MuseRider]

25. I agree with you.

I am not certain given Dean's job that he blew it but then again, it does sound terrible.

Kucinich can always be counted on to make a good statement and good for Kerry.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

26. Everyone reacts differently to loss, to death, to milestones

Some get sad, some get angry.

Some know some of the lost, others grieve deeply even if they don't personally know anyone.

Some of us grieve the loss of what might have been for each life gone, for each opportunity squandered.

There is a place in the world, AFAIAC, for each to react in their own way. And that will be reflected in public statements and reflections.

Let it be...wistful words of wisdom...let it be...

[Cha]

29. What a sweet thing to

say. To those who think Dean didn't say it right ..here's his
"Tell Gov. Dean What You Think" addy..

http://www.dnc.org/page/petition/chairman

Go ahead get if off your chest straight to the Gov's eyes.

[welshTerrier2]

28. sorry, i disagree ...

first, let me say i completely agree that no single death is worse than the any of the others ... but i think the base post is a little thin ...

here's an excerpt of what Dean said:

"Today, our nation marks one of the saddest days of the war in Iraq, the loss of the 2,000th American soldier there. Each soldier lost on the battlefield leaves behind a family forever marked by tragedy, and scarred with grief. Their loss weighs heavily on the heart of every single American. Today, we are united in reflecting on the suffering and sacrifice of the brave men and women in uniform and their families."

Dean said it was "one of the saddest", not "the saddest" ... and he clearly said "each soldier lost ..." ... that's a pretty fair recognition that each and every lost life and its effect on grieving families should be recognized and valued ...

And let's be honest here ... #2000 is a MILESTONE ... yes, it's just another number in the endless sequence ... but it's still a MILESTONE ... even United for Peace and Justice called for demonstrations when that specific number was reached ... are they playing politics or are they sincerely trying to end the war??

But Dean's statement ultimately is very worthy of criticism ... not for the reasons cited in the OP ... Dean set a "litmus test" before we can withdraw ... Americans, and certainly not Democrats, no longer support this war ... we are not willing to sacrifice more troops, more tax dollars and more American prestige while the political jackasses in Washington continue to fund bush's war ... Dean's call for anything but withdrawal or an Iraqi referendum on continued American occupation is unacceptable ... it's out of touch with the Party's grassroots ... and it's out of touch with reality ...

so i voice my support for Dean's comments about the death of so many Americans in Iraq and I therefore call his failure to demand the withdrawal of those still alive a hypocritical disgrace ...

[zulchzulu]

32. I think they all had it right...

Kucinich and Kerry made their statements. As far as how the votes were made on the IWR, that is actually not to be seen as either voting "for" or "against" the war. Bush decided to start an illegal war that illuded sections 3 and 4 of the IWR and used false reports of WMDs to lie his way into PNAC's war.

What Dean said about the 2000th death was that it was a milestone in the war. It wasn't that the 2000th death was sadder than any of the others...

He's probably privvy to the fact that the 2000th death is only the official military number, which is far lower than the REAL number if you base it on soldiers who have died from injuries AFTER they were shipped out of Iraq.

Since numbers have ranged from 5,000-15,000+ in actual deaths from the war from soldiers who died in medical facilities around the globe that served in Iraq, the 2000th (and any other statisitcal number) is indeed sad... 2000 is a sad and tragic milestone.

If anything, Dean made an honest statement about the event and we should not try to pounce on him that it wasn't the "perfect" speech.

Keep your eye on the ball.

[Cha]

34. :)

[onenote]

36. 2000 includes those who die in hospitals in Germany, US, etc.

The myth that "it doesn't count" if the death occurs outside of Iraq has be debunked here countless times.

onenote

[zulchzulu]

37. So where were the numbers "debunked any times"?

Prove it.

[onenote]

75. Here are a couple of links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5110737#5110816

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5161644#5161845

There are plenty more. Now, can I ask you to "prove" your assertion?
Fair is fair.

onenote

[bluedawg12]

42. Sorry zulchzulu-

I can't give the ones who voted for the IR a pass anymore.

Kucinich said it well prior to war- there was no justification.
If he saw it why didn't others.

They weren't fed false info. totally, everyone knew that the UN inspectors had NOT found anything and were making progress.

And

"Bush decided to start an illegal war that illuded sections 3 and 4 of the IWR and used false reports of WMDs to lie his way into PNAC's war." Yes shurb lied his way into war. But he did not by pass Sect. 3 and 4 the way I read it.

First look at the name of the law they passed:


"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq "

Then look at those sections. They left it up to shrub.

This is not old news. It's important news, because many still think even today that going to war was the right choice but that it was poorly executed. Based on that logic we run the risk of further wars if all the like minded people have their way. Syria? Iran? if they haven't learned, if we keep talking about honoring the acrifice and simply altering the course for better strategy, rather than leaving, we are no better than shrubco.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2177082&mesg_id=2177082

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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[karynnj]

43. The IWR GOT THE INSPECTERS IN

But you say:

"They weren't fed false info. totally, everyone knew that the UN inspectors had NOT found anything and were making progress."

This is absolutely false. The inspecters weren't in until after the IWR and after Bush and Powell went to the UN.

This is important - what it means is the IWR worked - it got the inspecters in - they found NOTHING except some missiles that flew beyond the allowed distance (without warheads). Saddam agreed to destroy them.

As the inspections were working, there was NO justification under IWR to go to war - Bush was still talking war - and it is this time period where Dean first spoke out against the war, Kerry made some strong speeches as well.

The sad thing is that Bush could have claimed a legitimate victory at this point (or a few months later). He would have proven Iraq clean of WMD.

[bluedawg12]

52. karynnj- you are totally correct

Thank you for pointing that out, I am getting 02, and 03 confuscated.

October 10, 2002: They signed the law.

February 14, 2003.
Blix/ELBARADEI'S POINTS reported they found no WMD's

March 20, 2003 Invasion of Iraq begins.

.............
They signed a law giving the President war power determination even before UNSCOM and IAEA had made thier findings?

Why did they sign a law in advance of any such proof that gave thePresident such broad unregulated powers to determine when to go to war?

I can't recall, it semed like there was such a rush on the eve of war, but did Congress vote on the March 20, 2003 invasion formally?

............


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq
Bush: U.S. must confront Iraq 'fully and finally'
Thursday, October 10, 2002

http://www.themoderntribune.com/hans_blix_report_to_un_february_14_2003_full_text_-_war_on_iraq_-_inspections.htm

Below is the Summary of Key Points is the complete text of the report by Hans Blix to the United Nations on February 14, 2003.

>Summary of Key Points
BLIX'S POINTS
• No convincing evidence that Iraqis have known in advance of inspectors' plans
• U.N. weapons inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but won't rule out the possibility they may exist
• Not clear that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell conclusively demonstrated illicit movement of arms

ELBARADEI'S POINTS
Inspectors have so far found no evidence of nuclear weapons, but are still investigation
Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations <
...........
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1767468
Blix: Lack of 'Critical Judgment' Led to Iraq War

"If you sentence someone to death or you sentence someone to war, you'd better have some evidence," Blix tells NPR's Bob Edwards. "And we didn't feel there was evidence..."
>The 2003 Invasion of Iraq began on March 20.

[karynnj]

64. Thanks, and sorry that I was rude as well as right

[bluedawg12]

67. karynnj- No prob. I am taking a crash course

in real life politics here at DU and getting off my comfortable ass and trying to learn a lot very fast about what has happened to this country.

I couldn't take it any more after Katrina- and joined DU and am working hard on catching up on things that a lot of folks here probably have thought about and debated for a long time.

So, I am just as happy if some one points out I am wrong rather me going along with some false conclusion.

As I keep saying, these are important times, serious matters, and average Americans like me need to start thinking about what happened to us and how we get out of this total FUBAR that @ss hat has created.

peace-

bluedogger

[LittleClarkie]

49. I don't think some of those who voted for the IWR

realized what a stranglehold Bush and his cronies had on anyone who might dissent from going to war. I don't think people like Kerry voted to trust Bush as much as they were voting to trust the system around him. They didn't realize that normal channels were being circumvented. They didn't realize that Powell had so little say, or that Bush was so resentful of his father that he was determined to do what daddy hadn't.

And I don't think that those who were talking like Kerry was at the onset of the war, but who didn't have to vote, should be given a pass either.

[bluedawg12]

56. LittleClarkie- I feel a little better now that I

have got the dates in sequence. The vote was in Oct. 02 and war in March '03.

Then, I can see where they may have had no better intelligence than was fed to them, cherry picked and spun to hell.

Even though all this was just a few years ago so much has happened.

I read Gen. Clark's radio speech on the DNC web yesterday.

Did I understand him to say that he has certain bench marks that need to be met and defined by the admin. and he wants a clear exit plan from them?

I wonder what everyone thins of that as our position.

That will be countered by those who think immediate with-drawal is the right choice now. That is where I am at the moment.

[zulchzulu]

66. Read Sect. 3&4...Bush didn't do that...he lied...he committed war crimes

Read Section 3 and 4 again... Bush did not comply with the terms of the resolution.

I would not have voted for the resolution myself, but I can understand Kerry's position on the matter. Sometimes I think Kerry and Kennedy decided to split the vote for Massachusetts...either way, they were fed a pack of lies and Bush turned out to not even be compliant on the resolution.

I've also learned that completely throwing out what a Senator votes on ONE issue is a tad foolish. I also find it to be a Repug talking point to say that someone who voted for the IWR "voted for the war". That is simply deceptive and purposefully inaccurate.

Kerry voted for the UN to inspect for WMDs and to go to Iraq as an absolute last resort...not unilaterally without an exit strategy...

[bluedawg12]

83. zulchzulu-OK I re-read it and made some notes.

First: I hope you were not calling me deceptive and purposefully innaccurate or passing on repug talking points? I just want to be sure rather than get angry and respond in anger.
..........
In reply to your other points.

I can't find where it says, "absolute last resort...not unilaterally without an exit strategy..."

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 2, 2002

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
–>The President is to use force as he determines to be neccessary.

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

--> Against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. What continuing -->threat? The ones the neocons claim that Iraq was?

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

--> They went to the UN, remember they sent Powell with the bougus vial of white powder, then claimed they did their duty and now demanded that the UN enforce their own resolutions. When they did not, shrubco claimned that the US had a right to self defense as a soveriegn nation and went to war.

-->By sending Powell they sought to appease the oppostion who called for a visit to the UN. Guess it worked for some.

(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 there after 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

–>He did this, right?


(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

—> This says that further “diplomatic means alone” will not lead to protection (of US) or enforcement of UNSC resolutions.

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

-->Wasn’t that his argument that Saddam had 24 hours to turn over the non-existent weapons and when he didn't then shrub said he failed to comply!


====> You say: “Kerry voted for the UN to inspect for WMDs and to go to Iraq as an absolute last resort...not unilaterally without an exit strategy...”

—>There is nothing here about an absolute last resort, I thought that’s what the Law said too, because I heard Kerry say that during the campaign. But it says the opposite, instead of last resort if diplomatic means alone are not adequate, it says: “ if reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States “ then shrub can go to war.

–>That is not exhaustive diplomatic means, that says shrub had the discretion to determine when reliance on further peaceful means or diplomatic means “alone” were not enough and then he could go to war.

–>They gave shrub the power got to determine that they were not enough.
I wish it said: If all peaceful and diplomatic means had been demonstrated and documented to be insufficient, then, the President will be obliged to present such information to Congress before going to war, to seek approval for war. I wish it said that. It does not.

–> The law never says a word about unilaterally.

–> The law never says anything about an exit strategy.


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

----> This is where they conflate the war with terrorism and 9-11.

(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.
–> legal bull shit

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
–> legal bull shit


SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

–> Is this what he didn’t do?

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

–> legal bull shit

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

–> legal bull shit

............The Top of The law.


Whereas the efforts of
-international weapons inspectors,
-United States intelligence agencies,
-and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

---->This is a lie as far as the inspectors. And we now the rest about the CIA, Chalabi, and Judy Miller and her war drums.



Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace ...among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

—> Iraq was suspected to have WMD’s, this was not proven.
I read a UN resolution at the time, and yes, there was some language about WMD’s, but it did not rise to the level of convincing any of the other sec. Council except UK, correct on this? It’s been some time.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

—> 500 hundred members of ansar al Islam escaped Afghanistan during operation Anaconda, after we invaded there, and they were known to be hiding in northern Iraq, this was after 9-11. More bull shit.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

–> Theoretically yes, any wmd’s in the hands of any terrorists would be a danger.

—>But 9-11 was not subject to WMD’s, it was planes as predicted in the daily PDB that shrub did not read.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

–> This is carte blanche, it says we can go it alone because it is in the national security of the US...peace in the Persian Gulf. They used this to claim that every sovereign country has the right to unilaterally defend itself.

[karynnj]

40. I agree Dean was absolutely tone deaf on this

He is the Chairman of the Democratic party and as such represents all of us. This statement is reflecting on 2000 DEATHS - 2000 people no longer living. The statement goes out to the nation - including the parents, spouses, children, and friends of these people.

Nothing you can say to these people will suffice for the loss of their loved ones. But for such a solemn occasion, an eloquent, heart felt message to these people is needed - and it should not be turned into a political opportunity. There are millons of appropriate occasions to criticise Bush and I have no problem with any Democrat, Independent or Republican who does so, but this is not worthy of us.

If Dean can see its wrong on a human decency level, he should at least have the intelligence to see that on a political level it buys us no friends to use the milestone of 2000 dead to attack Bush.

[Guaranteed]

44. You're making the right-wing's talking points for them.

Nice job.

And, personally, I think it is a pretty sad day when that thousands digit rolls over to a 2.

[karynnj]

46. Right wing????

The op was most certainly not making a RW statement - it wasn't even a political statement. You can disagree with him or her, saying that round numbers have significance as milestones - but why attack the poster as Rw?

[Guaranteed]

47. I didn't. I said that the OP was making the RW's

talking-points for them.

[karynnj]

50. What do you see wrong with the OP - I'm confused

Is any criticism of anything Dean says or does RW talking points? I don't think there is ANYONE I find so perfect that I don't disagree with something they said or did.

[Guaranteed]

54. Unless he's making RW talking points, or lying, yes....

any criticism of anything Dean says or does is a right-wing talking point.

[karynnj]

58. I can't parse this sentence at all

Even diagraming the sentence doesn't help!

[Guaranteed]

60. I answered your

rhetorical question. I'm sorry if you didn't like it.

[karynnj]

62. It's not that I didn't like it, I don't understand it

[Guaranteed]

65. Well, keep reading it until you do.

:dunce:

[onenote]

72. I was prepared to ignore the rw comment, but accuring me of lying?

I'd like to see you back that statement up, my friend. What "lie" did I make when I offered my suggestion that Kerry and Kucinich did a better job of addressing the 2000 dead milestone than Dean. Sorry, but I don't read RW talking points. If you've got a subscription, please share.

onenote

[Guaranteed]

86. I said unless DEAN is making RW talking points, or lying....nt

[onenote]

87. I'll accept that, although it could've been clearer

[Guaranteed]

57. Besides, I think you should take a closer look at what Dean said.

What he said was that Bush didn't *recognize* our 2,000th dead soldier in Iraq, although he had the opportunity- and that it was one of the saddest days of the war.

I wholeheartedly agree with him.

The only thing sadder than the death of our 2,000th soldier in the war is the fact that our President refused to recognize it.

[karynnj]

63. I agree with you on this wholeheartedly

I am saddened, but not surprised that Bush made no mention of the occasion even though he was at an event with millitary families. Even though I have problems with Dean's statement - Bush's lack of a statement says far more.

[onenote]

73. I think its just as sad

that chimpy didn't recognize number 1999 and he won't recognize 2001. The media is going to play up 2000. Our leaders should play up the larger picture, IMHO.

onenote

[bluedawg12]

76. onenote- Chimpy does not ever go to a funeral of the fallen

the news-stoppo won't allow photo's of the coffins being shown with respect and dignity to honor the remains draped in the flag they died for.

Why would a man in deep denial mention something this close to his eternal damnation?

"The media is going to play up 2000. Our leaders should play up the larger picture, IMHO."

Agree that they should do both. The media needs to get more respectful about naming, honoring, these young hero's. So we can talk about getting out before the count rises further.

2,000 is only important in so far as we get used to hearing numbers of KIA and every once in a while it is good to stop and think how many young lives who went willingly and with great idealism about protecting our nation after 9-11.

In the 60's, as a pup, I heard the nightly news body count. It lost meaning after a while.

Many years later I went to the Viet Nam wall and saw all those names and was moved to tears decades after the war ended.

"Lest we forget them."

2,000 is worth a momentary pause and some reflection because when we do we honor all of the fallen at the same time.

[onenote]

78. I don't disagree with anything you said

And I'm glad that Kerry and Kucinich and Dean did make statements. It was the right thing to do. My only criticism was that I wished that Dean's statement had reached out more to those who haven't been with us. It felt like a statement that was "preaching to the choir." As head of the party I know that his a facet of his job. But so is reaching out and I think we can do a better job of that.

onenote

[LittleClarkie]

79. Right. Chimpy never does. But someone else has been seen at one

[bluedawg12]

85. Sen. Kerry is a decent patriotic American who has served the US

long before chimpy got his nose out of powder and snout out of the bottle.

This is a man who volunteered for the war in Viet Nam and was wounded, the other is a rich boy who waged war on the dangerous golf courses of Alabama when he was supposed to be in Texas!! muhhawwhawww

[second edition]

91. All true!! Kerry is a true leader. n/t

[onenote]

70. I think every day of this war is sad. One day isn't better or worse.

[many a good man]

51. Today IS the saddest day so far

Tomorrow will be even a little bit sadder. The day after tomorrow will be sadder still. Each day it just gets sadder and sadder.

[cajones_II]

53. I find it's always of paramount importance

to nit pick other Democrats statements regarding the Iraq War.
After all, the last thing we want is a united front. Or heated criticism of Bush.

So good job with that.

[bluedawg12]

59. Regarding criticism of shrub

I do have these facts correct.

The RW to this very day continues to insist that it was justified in going to war because the weapons inspectors c reported that Saddam was not cooperating.

I believe Mr. Neocon himself stuttered those points yesterday on The Daily Show. He even had a hard time with the lies.

BUT- the weapons inspectors reported to the contrary that there was no evidence of WMD's at all and that their investigation was moving ahead and picking up steam.

Also, regarding the Iraqi's throwing the inspectors out ( 1998? was it?) that shrubco so often refereed to. Scott Ritter explained that on CSPAN this Sunday- they had already concluded the inspection and found that Saddam had not reconstituted any WMD's at all. Some data was missing on disposal, that's it. Then someone sent some letter or other and they had to go back in and start going through some more background records and they were sent with CIA agents in tow and Saddam knew it and then threw them out. By that time it was known that after 1991 no more WMD's were found or likely in Iraq.

It all came down to a prior decision to go to war by the neoconn's come hell or high water.

[onenote]

69. I thnk its important that dem leaders communicate not just with our base

but with those who should be with us, but haven't been...and if "nitpicking" Dean so that he does a better job of reaching out, then I'm going to nit pick him. There are plenty of posts here debating whether Dean or Kerry or whomever is more pure on the war. So if you want to be critical of those who aren't maintaining a united front, I'd focus on those posts.

onenote

[leesa]

55. Right. Of course, Kerry wants to send more grist for the mill.

He may say pretty words but he's very much in favor of this war for oil and supremacy.

[karynnj]

61. Where precisely does he say that

It wasn't at the SFRC meeting last week when he questioned Rice, or in any comments that I have ever read. I have heard him repeatedly call for America to develop the technology to end the dependence on foreign oil.

Kerry's position on Iraq will be much better known tomorrow when he not DU gets to say what it is. Previously, he was among the first to insist we have NO permanent bases (so much for Supremacy), his policies have been close to Kennedy's (per Kerry and Kennedy). He has said he would not have gone to war.

You have heard this - people have given you links to statements and speeches - so why make these provactive statements WHICH THE MODERATORS ALLOW BECAUSE IT IS KERRY.

[LittleClarkie]

68. He is not in favor of this war for oil and supremacy

at least not FOR the oil and supremacy anyway.

If anything, he knows more than some what international crime is, and it's killing him to watch what he knows is a worldwide problem being made worse by our Glorious Leader.

But I think even his breaking point is coming. As he told Cindy, if the goal of an independant free Iraq can not be achieved, he doesn't want anyone else to die for it. If things don't improve soon, I think you may find that Kerry will start to sound like Kucinich on the subject.

That is my prediction.

[bluedawg12]

74. I always felt that Sen Kerry was concerned about security

and the terrorists. I still remember the tone of the nation when all of this started. It was very much a post 9-11 mentality, he was being attacked by a chicken-hawk-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-bill
for being anti-war.

Those fat fucks from the FatBoat lies were making the talk show circuits and running their reprehensible ads.

If anything, I felt his mind set was to be strong on national security. I never sensed that he was money grubbing like the neuvo riche Darth Cheney. I never got that Sen. Kerry was for oil or even neocon world domination.

But, I think he is a cautious man, and his tipping will come as the reality of this mess becomes more certain.

Things sure have changed since 2001, September, shrib blew it with the trust of the world.

Sucker Carlson just predicted indictments based on the original cahrge- the release of a covert agent- he claims he just got a news fax from WaPo, I think he said.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Kerry got it right? Unlike Dennis, he didn't call for an end to the war

Kerry hasn't been right about Iraq since he learned to spell the name of that country.

[wisteria]

81. Dean's statement does seem a little too political for the occasion.

Recognition of the number of war dead, would have been enough. I don't think it was necessary for him to even mention Bush in this statement. If Bush didn't make a statement about this (I actually think he did), people and the media would notice the omission and call him out on it.

[bluedawg12]

84. I thought shrub made a speech at a repug fund raiser today

and something- I can;t stand listening to his crap so I tuned him out on CSPAN- but I caught somehing about more sacrifice.

[Cha]

94. No he didn't..Dean

got it right.

[madfloridian]

97. Bush has been very political about his little war...

I think it was great that Dean reminded people of his lack of caring about the deaths of the soldiers.

[sendero]

89. You are entitled to your opinion...

... but I don't think you make much of a case.

In any event, I'd rather have someone who hits a foul in the midst of home runs than someone who bunts every damn ball.

[Cha]

95. That's a good way to say it..

In the middle of World Series and all that :)

[Catchawave]

96. Refresh my memory.....

Why didn't we win in 2004 ?

And please, no Diebold excuses, 79 million voters did not show up last election day. That was our problem.