Reasons NOT to nominate an IWR signer in 2008.

[xkenx]

We don't need to nominate for president anyone with the missing courage/integrity which permitted him/her to vote for IWR when the information that the intelligence was bogus or weak was known to all congressional Democrats at the time. Since virtually any Rethug nominee will have voted for IWR, or supported Bush all the way, they can throw this at a Dem. who voted for IWR, "You voted for the war, just like me." Why give them this kind of defense? We need all the Independent and moderate Republican votes we can get. Iraq is & will be an albatross around the neck of the Rethugs. We need to clearly differentiate us from them. We have or will have people with strong credentials who were against the Iraq war-- Clark, Gore, Obama to name three. No need to rationalize the ones who were either too dumb or were looking out for their political asses at the time. Plus, why should we think that he/she would not base decisions on a wet political finger in the wind if they were in office? Time for honor, integrity, character in the White House. DO NOT ENABLE THE ENABLERS!

[JI7]

1. Kucinich actually voted against the IWR unlike the others

and he actually attended protests and other things to oppose the war unlike others.

if people are that serious about it i would think they would back Kucinich.

[AtomicKitten]

6. 10,001 ...

You've said that now by last count 10,000 times ...

and it still doesn't mitigate Kerry's yes vote on the IWR.

Better luck on the next 10,000 tries.

[Greyhound]

78. Are you on the payroll,

or just infatuated?

[ProSense]

2. What about people who cheered on the war and are still trying to win? n/t

[pnwmom]

3. What you are overlooking is the fact that Bush would have gotten his IWR

no matter how the Democrats had voted. If the compromise IWR hadn't passed in October, then the new Republican majorities in January would have given him any IWR he wanted -- a blank check.

By signing onto an IWR that they thought had SOME safeguards, some of the Democrats thought they were doing the more sensible thing. As it turned out, they were wrong, because Bush ignored the constraints in the law.

I am far more concerned with how Presidential candidates react to Bush's plan for a "surge" than I am with how they voted on the IWR.

[lancdem]

8. I'm with you

[LittleClarkie]

9. The Republicans have Democrats for a shield on that vote

and they use it too.

I won't.

The Dems did not start this war.

[pnwmom]

10. You're right, the Dems didn't start the war.

Even the ones that voted for the IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

14. and the fact that the Dems gave the Repubs this as a gift

- a shield - is part of what makes that vote so very, very wrong on so many levels, in this case very poor judgment politically.

But, heh, whatever excuses the vote for you is your business.

[pnwmom]

21. They didn't give this to them as a shield. They voted to approve

a COMPROMISE bill because if they hadn't, then an even worse bill -- giving Bush a completely blank check -- would have been approved in January, as soon as the Republicans took office.

[AtomicKitten]

23. You be sure to make that clarification every single time

a Republican or the MSM calls this a bipartisan war. Better bring a friend because you're going to be busy refuting that claim.

[pnwmom]

27. Unfortunately, the truth isn't always a matter of black and white.

Life would be so much simpler if it were.

[AtomicKitten]

29. on issues of war (and torture) there must be no gray areas

not in my world, maybe in yours

[pnwmom]

31. You're twisting my words. As I said, no Democrat voted for torture.

That IS a matter of black and white. No Democrat voted for Bush to start the war in the way he did. That is black and white.

BUT that doesn't stop Republicans from USING a vote such as the IWR by blurring the distinction between what the Democrats voted for and what Bush subsequently did.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Well, if you want to be binary

that's up to you,

[talk hard]

40. and if "my bad" does it for you

that's on you

[LittleClarkie]

46. No excuse for the vote, really

Not looking for one. If that's what you think I was offering up, it wasn't.

But if someone has apologized and is now moving toward peace, then I don't quite see the point of continually hammering folks over the head for past mistakes. Why be fixated on one thing, taking it out of context and elevating to a high crime. Not sure of the point of being obsessed with JUST that and nothing that happened before or after.

Just looking at the big picture, my dear, just looking at the big picture.

[MH1]

13. Aw, no fair, you're using logic.

C'mon, why spoil a good screed by bringing logic and reason into it?

Seriously - Thank you for a very sensible post.

[pnwmom]

22. You're welcome.

Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Maybe, but John Kerry might be President as we speak if they had all voted NO

The Democrats would've had a hell of a lot more credibility in 2004 if they could've said that they didn't trust Bush from the start with unilateral authority and then turned out to be right.

The IWR was such a weak resolution that it was worthless. Bush could claim that Poland's support constituted building a coalition according to the IWR and they knew it. Even Biden/Lugar would've been better.

I'll admit that the troop surge does deserve serious consideration, though. Also Obama, Clark, and Gore never had to go on the record as for or against the IWR and so it's going to be difficult to compare them to those that did.

[xkenx]

45. Clark IS on record against IWR in Congressional testimony.

Not only did Ted Kennedy say that Wes Clark's input was the primary reason he voted no, but Clark was on record, in sworn testimony before both Senate and House Armed services committees in Sept. 2002. He advocated restraint, work with U.N., more inspections, coalition-building, war only as a last resort. He counseled Dems. to vote no to any IWR as it was being formulated by Bush. At these same committees, neocon Richard Perle blasted Clark for his timidity, and Clark came under harsh questioning from Rethugs on the committees. Clark stood his ground and repeated the reasons for restraint. This can be viewed on You Tube. Both Clark and Perle were back at those committees in the past year or so, and even Rethugs were crediting Clark for being right and Perle wrong. Here is the opening statement by Clark to HASC on 9-26-02, right off HASC website.
(In fact, upon re-reading this, I'm reminded of the pointed remarks about not allowing Saddam Hussein to distract us from going after Al Qaeda.
How prescient of Clark!) Note how, in the beginning, Clark shows how tough he is and knows what a bad guy Saddam was, then proceeds to outline how to contain him without preemtive war. Brilliant strategy from a master!

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY
BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

[CTLawGuy]

49. the IWR WAS a blank check

and "he would have gone anyway" is not an excuse.

[SOS]

50. If the yes voters thought there were "safeguards" they didn't read it

The "safeguards" were negated in Section 3 (a):

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

That's the only sentence that matters. A blank check, pure and simple.

[LWolf]

51. Overlooked? I don't think so.

I don't think a single other vote washes anyone's hands clean of those 3,000 deaths. It really doesn't matter how the republicans voted; it matters that Democrats joined them in giving Bush an open door. They should have barred that door, whether their bars were strong enough to hold it or not.

Since when do we give ourselves permission to cause harm to others because "everyone else does?"

[Maven]

56. Aw, no fair! You're using logic. ;)

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

4. We cannot turn out backs on those that have truly repented of their IWR votes

How can that be fair? How can we say to an elected representative that we won't vote for him/her because they voted for IWR, despite everything they have done since then to redeem themselves, while giving a pass to those that had the good fortune of not being in a position in which they had to vote yea or nay for it.

[AtomicKitten]

5. sure we can

"I'm sorry" doesn't mitigate yes votes on war and torture.

[pnwmom]

11. No Democrat voted for torture.

And no Democrat voted for Bush to kick the inspectors out and go in without UN approval.

[AtomicKitten]

17. your rationalizations only work for you

and those seeking to dismiss this as "one wrong vote"

[pnwmom]

19. It's not a rationalization, it's a fact.

No Democrat voted for torture, or for Bush to kick out the inspectors.

[AtomicKitten]

26. no, it's your convenient interpretation of the ramifications of votes

which, again, as certain as you are, only works for you and others that choose to white-wash the reality of these kinds of votes ... I understand why you do it but that still doesn't make it right.

[pnwmom]

32. I'm not interpreting, I'm going by the wording of the votes.

And you can't show me any vote by any Democrat that approved the torture or pulling the inspectors out of Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

12. I think that Kerry has more than redeemed himself

in standing up for habeas corpus, and for the Kerry/Feingold troop withdrawal resolution.

There are those that have yet to repent, and time is running out for them to do so in a credible manner.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I'm sure those that have died would agree

if only they could ...

Kerry had every opportunity to recant BEFORE the 2004 election but remained steadfast, and has thus lost all credibility in that regard.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

[talk hard]

41. right on!

on both counts

[Hippo_Tron]

44. AK, I'm with IndianaGreen on this one

Don't get me wrong, I don't consider John Kerry a serious contender for the presidency. I think that he has simply dug his own grave and not because of his botched joke, but because of his refusal to do just as you said... come out with a firm anti-war stance until after the 2004 elections.

That being said, since the election he's been one of the best champions we have and I respect that. He's trying to make sure that no more people are killed in this war, and that's perhaps the only thing that he can do to try and repent for his actions.

Save Max Cleland who is no longer in the Senate, the others who voted for this war are merely apologizing with words. And frankly their words aren't even that repentant. Walter B Jones, the Republican congressman from North Carolina, broke into tears in his apology for voting yes on the IWR and sponsored a resolution for troops withdrawal from Iraq. I certainly haven't seen anything like that from Hillary or Edwards.

Actions speak louder than words and Kerry is speaking with actions.

[xkenx]

7. Maybe, but THREE years later, when it's totally safe to repent?

[IndianaGreen]

15. I think that all those that were going to repent, have already repented

I think that those that haven't done so by now, won't do so later.

The question is whether they will oppose Bush's surge in Iraq, or continue to support the war while disparaging Bush's "management" of it.

[noamnety]

18. I keep asking when Clark wants to pull out of Iraq

What day? When?

and people keep telling me that's not a fair question.

What good does it do now to have opposed the start of the war if you won't commit to a deadline (a month? a year? 5 years? anything?) for pulling troops out?

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. In my opinion there are only three logical positions regarding Iraq

A) Pull out as soon as is humanly possible without overly endangering our troops during a withdrawal, meaning essentially withdraw almost immediately.

B) Commit to doing whatever it will take to "win" the war (whatever it is that "winning the war" means to you).

C) Commit to no permanent American occupation of Iraq, work on how to get out as soon as possible while attempting to achieve minimal and not totally unrealistic goals, and establish benchmarks to measure whether those goals are being achieved. Depart quickly if those goals prove unrealistic to achieve given the resources we are willing to make available, since there is no reason to drag it out any further if that becomes the case.

The first position is essentially the "Out Now" option: We failed. Nothing we are doing inside Iraq can be of any good. Everyone will be better off the sooner we leave (or at least America will be). So why wait another month?

The second position is essentially the old Bush "Stay the Course" line with an unrepentant and grandiose concept of what "winning" entails (though Bush is trying to come up with some new window dressing to repackage this position). While there is a certain logic to this position (if one accepts that it's goals are desirable) it is totally unrealistic. There is no way the American public would ever accept the sacrifices (nor should we) that would be needed to subdue lawlessness and civil war inside Iraq through the use of U.S. military power.

The third position acknowledges that there are real limits to what we could possible achieve regarding Iraq at this point, while also acknowledging that there are compelling reasons for attempting to minimally achieve what is still possible. It acknowledges that the clock is running on our ability to remain inside Iraq, and that we can't stay there indefinitely. It does not blindly say that we must stay until those goals are achieved, it instead says that since there is still some real mission inside Iraq that justifies an attempt to complete it, an immediate withdrawal now is being rejected as the first option.

All fixed timeline for withdrawal positions reject the logic of option A, if not they would simply embrace option A. They also reject the logic of option B, if not they wouldn't set a timer on when we would leave, victory or no victory. The bottom line is that they say; we can't just leave now, but we will leave later according to this schedule.

Speaking for myself, I've never seen a rigid fixed timeline that I trust to stay rigid and fixed when circumstances shift in the real world, and in fact the entire idea seems fishy to me. If it is so important that we get out of Iraq without making any attempt to minimize potentially horrendous after effects from our withdrawal, then just leave now. If it is so important to keep some American troops inside Iraq in order to attempt to complete a mission critical enough that it justifies them all not leaving now, then a plan that incrementally removes our troops over time via a calender, without any further regard to how fast they are accomplishing the work that justified leaving them there in the first place, is at best mechanical and at worst duplicitous.

I've seen some say that it is easy for a Democrat who wasn't in Congress at the time of the IWR vote to claim that they would have opposed it, but no can really know since they weren't faced with that vote in reality. Well a case can be made that it is easy for a politician to curry favor by claiming they would faithfully withdraw all of our troops from Iraq using some fixed timeline that they would not deviate from, while they are not sitting in the White House facing the implications of that withdrawal in reality. Sitting in the White House they might be told by the King of Jordon that six more months are needed to stabilize the situation or there will be a regional blood bath. Or perhaps the Prime Minister of Israel will request that we keep troops on the border with Iran longer, or he will feel it necessary to act on his own against Iran's nuclear program, or perhaps the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would tell him that real progress was made in reforming six Iraqi Police Battalions, but that progress was slower than anticipated and they are seven months behind schedule to reform the rest.

If you believe that there is no good reason left for American forces to remain inside Iraq, that support some politician who agrees with you on that, and who is calling for an immediate and total withdrawal. Everyone else is either fudging or lying or showing terrible judgment to say that troops can't leave now because of important work that remains unfinished, but they will promise you now to the day when that work will be finished in time for them to leave, or that they will yank them out anyway on a predetermined schedule regardless of what critical stage of near but not final completion that mission has reached by that date. All that politician is doing is speaking in code to you to let you understand that they will not leave the United States stuck inside Iraq indefinitely. That code happens to be setting a supposedly "fixed timeline" to withdraw that any responsible leader would not stay bound by to the exclusion of all subsequent developing events.

A responsible leader who did not believe that there was an important reason to keep American troops inside Iraq for more than the 60 days it might take to pull them all out, would call for immediate withdrawal now. If they won't call for that then they are conceding that there is something important to be accomplished by keeping our forces inside Iraq beyond those 60 days. I promise you this, it is a lot easier to say with certainty that you honestly believe the jig is up now so get our troops out of Iraq NOW, than it is to say with certainty, no the jig isn't really up yet, but it will be in exactly 8, 12 or 15 months. What matters is the plan, not the timeline. What matters is the intention, not the calender. What matters is understanding that the U.S. can't long remain inside Iraq without accelerating negative consequences, not an arbitrary target date. What matters is someone honest and skilled enough to evaluate when a tipping point is passed, when staying does more harm than leaving, not someone willing to throw around numbers and dates when they have no accountability for the consequences of their abstract promises.

[noamnety]

34. I'm in the out now camp

and having huge trouble figuring out how any politician can justify legal OR moral grounds for keeping US troops there.

For me, the timeline needs to be "withdraw troops now, and it will take us X many days to physically remove them."

I agree with you that "we'll stay for 12 more months and leave" is based on a myth that some political goal will be achieved between now and then. I also believe that "we'll keep them there (no date specified) until some political goal is achieved" is a nice myth-based plan.

Given the choice between the two myths, I guess I want one with an end point over one without. Fortunately, there are other choices, and I don't have to pick between those two.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I respect the out now camp.

The cleaness of that position makes sense to me. I wish I did not have reason to believe that I might live to regret a total rapid withdrawal from Iraq now under the current set of circumstances. However if and when I flip from my current position, it won't be to a fixed timeline, it will be to out now.

[Clark2008]

55. I'm going to do something for you - if I can get my husband to

actually sit down and write it out for me, that is.

He explained to me one time why we can't just "get out now." Hubby was an Army Ranger and a Russian interpreter (in other words, he was on the intelligent AND brusque sides of the Army). A lot has to do with logistics and a lot has to do with what is set out in stone by the Geneva Conventions (provided the Bushies actually follow them, but that's a different thread) regarding when and how an occupying force can leave.

He's loathe to go over it again, I'm sure. LOL. But, if I can get him to provide some insight, I will.

Believe me, there are reasons why we can't just up and leave and they're valid, legally-binding reasons.

That said, we should have been making the political preparations long before now to get out, I agree, so that we could be out NOW, or as close to now as logistically possible. I'm afraid Bush hasn't done that, making it difficult for former commanders like Clark to make set-in-stone pronunciations about WHEN we CAN get out.

[noamnety]

65. Could you also explain this?

"We should use the UN for what it is good for. It offers credibility. It will not offer troops or money. We pay 25% of the UN budget but we're not going to get the UN to contribute the other 75%. But we can use the UN in Iraq to help spread the blame around -- let them hate some French and some others, instead of just hating us. The UN offers credibility because there's not one Iraqi who votes in the US. But they do have a delegate to the UN."

Is that a valid sort of diplomacy - to use the UN in order to "help spread the blame around" so they hate other people too?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Wesley_Clark_Foreign_Policy.htm


And also this, which sounds ominously like neoliberalism at its worst:

"The US growth engine is a benefit to other countries. No previous imperial power had done so well, either in creating wealth for itself, or in sharing the benefits with others. All of this was sustained not by a classical empire but rather by an interlocking web of international institutions.

* First were the security arrangements that emerged after WWII,
* Second, the US exercised leverage through security treaties like NATO, and bilateral treaties with Japan and Korea.
* American economic leadership was facilitated by institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and later the G8.

The US was at the hub of a network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." it was built on a foundation of institutions created by the US, reflecting the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. The major beneficiary of all of this was the US itself. This globalization was the New American Empire."

[zulchzulu]

20. Can I add another since we're playing silly games...

If a candidate EVER voted for a Republican or supported a Republican or Republican policies (like being "pro-life"), then they're out too... it's too late...

:sarcasm:

[renie408]

25. And that's good logic, too. n/t

[renie408]

28. What we need is someone who has never been in politics and is completely unknown

Someone nobody has ever heard of and who hasn't EVER had to make a tough decision or made a mistake.

Hey, I know that's who I want running this country.

[renie408]

24. I don't know about 'Enabling the enablers) but

this is the best logic I have read yet for not supporting someone who voted for the IWR.

[fuzzyball]

30. The way Iraq war has turned out, I have to agree with you although

initially I was in favor of deposing Saddam.

[laureloak]

36. Time for honor, integrity and character. And humans who err. n/t

[Stephanie]

37. I could agree with this. What about those who recanted later?

I like Edwards. I'd like to forgive him since he recanted. But I agree with you in general.

[talk hard]

39. how about a cookie for them

and leave governing to those that aren't dumbasses?

[FrenchieCat]

42. There are millions of people in this country....and we can only

nominate those who made a "human" "mistake" by allowing us to go to war for nothing?

The biggest Foreign Policy blunder in American History, and we're supposed to support someone who didn't know what I knew and what all of my French Friends and American Friends knew; hell, even Colin Powell said sorry and he ain't running for President; thank the Lord!

I'm supposed to support someone who co-sponsored the actual resolution at that....cause he said sorry 3 years later and talks a lot about the poor?

What planet are y'all living on? John Edwards certainly knows how to do the politicking part, but in terms of life and death decisions, I don't think he has what it takes.

Can't someone who makes a "human" "Mistake" that end up costing lives and treasure (trillions by the time we're through) atone by doing something other than running for President? Why should he be rewarded, even if he is forgiven.

I don't get it! But maybe I'm just not that hard up and think that he is the only candidate in the United States that's worth anything!

[xkenx]

47. You do cut to the chase, Frenchie!. Well stated.

It's not that we don't forgive people sincerely admitting mistakes; we just don't want to give them the opportunity to blunder again on the big stage, when we can do better.

[talk hard]

58. you hit it !

that "mistake" cost lots of lives

[cleveramerican]

48. how many Dems who voted yes lost in '06?

none. not one.

this is what makes me think the IWR vote is and will be a complete non-issue by the time '08 rolls around.


its simply too long ago to be uppermost in voters minds.

where do we go from here, will be uppermost on the Iraq issue.

[Realist2008]

52. if you want to lose

if you want to lose lets nominate some whack job like dennis

[The Count]

53. Yeah, judgement on starting wars is so 9.10..no, March 17 - oh, wait....

yeah, who cared about the war in the November elections?

[madfloridian]

54. You and other Clark supporters have at least 3 threads on Greatest now...

bashing other candidates.

[talk hard]

57. So it's only okay when you bash people?

I was wondering how that works.

[madfloridian]

59. Who have I been bashing? Be specific.

Very specific. It is none of the candidates for 08.

I am tired of being jumped on by people who say I am bashing. It is an old tactic, and it is getting tiresome.

[talk hard]

60. hmmmm

Hillary for one -- and your pretend innocence in these matters is tiring

[madfloridian]

62. No. not true. I criticized who she has advising her.

If you are going to say things about me like that, give specifics and be fair.

[talk hard]

63. of course its true

I've been reading DU for a long time --- you hate the Clintons and everybody associated with them
but it's fun watching you deny it!

you should be precise in your blanket denials, but I don't like her either because she voted for hte war.

[madfloridian]

64. No, you are not telling the truth. I don't like who is working for them..

and I don't like who Bill Clinton hangs around with. I don't like Hillary cozying up to Rupert Murdoch who has used his media to harm our country.

I have nothing personal about them, but as long as Hillary is so tied up with the consultants she is using I will have reservations.

You have targeted me, and I would like to know why. It is like this is many threads.

[xkenx]

66. MadFloridian, I too, have seen you on many threads bashin Clark

and Clark supporters. This is your M.O.

[madfloridian]

67. No, I do not bash Clark. I post facts. There's a difference.

There's a very big difference. I don't attack others, either. I have a post I was going to post here in GD about depleted uranium, and his casual attitude about it going into the war. But it would just get locked. People are not supposed to do that.

And if I did, it would not be "bashing". It would be presenting a series of facts.

[Cameron27]

71. What casual attitude about it going into war?

If you're going to make an accusation, please back it up; it won't get locked if it's true.

[madfloridian]

72. About depleted uranium.

Do a search at Democracy Now, or elsewhere. Casual, like it's not a problem.

Yes, it would get locked.

[madfloridian]

73. Indifferent about the dangers of depleted uranium.

And yes, it would get locked. I did not say casual about war, I say the dangers of depleted uranium.

[Cameron27]

74. I know what you said...

and having put that little nugget out there, you've managed to get your point across without having to post anything more at all.

Go for it; if it's true and not flamebait it won't get locked.

[madfloridian]

76. Won't be locked as flamebait...

Would be locked as continuing a thread. I once posted about what he advised senate leaders...it was judged I was continuing a thread.

It doesn't matter anyway that he did not take depleted uranium seriously, nor did other leaders. It is probably too late.

[Cameron27]

79. Apparently

The World Health Organization agrees with him:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

EXPOSURE TO URANIUM AND DEPLETED URANIUM

• Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of depleted uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.

• A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

More here:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q611.html

Edited to add: Wes Clark studied reports of the effects of depleted uranium before making his comments on CNN.

[madfloridian]

80. So WHO says depleted uranium is not a danger?

I wonder how many of our military feel about that now?

I have research, but I can't post it in a separate thread or it will be locked as continuing a thread that already exists.

So glad to hear depleted uranium is not a danger. :shrug:

[Left Coast Lynn]

61. The IRW didn't declare war

It gave Bush the authority if he deemed it necessary, with certain conditions being met. And some Democrats that voted for it feel Bush went ahead without meeting those conditions fully and honestly.

This trust was given to Bush in the shadow of 9-11 before we knew how horrible the guy was.

[JeremyWestenn]

69. They won't care.

I'm getting sick of some people on DU. It seems to be all about superiority, blame, etc. then it is trying to discuss anything with real merit. Everyone was duped, me included, we regret it, they regret it, it's done with. And the fact of the matter is that it's likely one of the people that did vote for IWR will in fact get the nomination, just get over it and get to something with merit.

[JeremyWestenn]

68. I'm so sick of this.

Everyone fell for it. The Republicans, the Democrats, the Independants, there was mass support to go to war. People make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and people admit to them like many of these people have admitted now. Of course it's easier to villify people with 20/20 vision and hindsight, but I am sick of this. Let's stop looking at the things people can't change and start looking ahead. Many of these nominee's have apologized, said they regretted voting, and of course knowning what we know now would not have voted for it. It's over and done with, move on.

[Maven]

70. Sorry, no.

Everyone didn't "fall" for it. A lot of Dems made a political calculation KNOWING (as we knew, and as many other critics knew) that the "war" was a total fucking sham. And other Dems had the balls to call it what it was: a lie.

Let's not rewrite history and pretend this is just a "hindsight is 20/20" type situation. Maybe you weren't paying attention to the debate pre-invasion, but many of us here were.

[JeremyWestenn]

75. It still stands. Let's get move on and work to the future.

And find real candidates that can solve our real problems. The only thing you had to point out is that I did not mention that some Democrats called it a sham and others an outright lie. Congratulations for clearing up something trivial and useless. It still stands, get over it, move on, let's work ahead, they've apologized, they've publicly regretted it, let's stop dragging our feet and pick who we want to win the primary based off who can clean up this mess the best.

[Pithy Cherub]

77. There is deep and abiding shame in callously

disregarding the people who are dead for lies. That distinction is yours alone as you have so clearly demonstrated that it is not worthy of your attention. The Democratic politicians who went out of their way to champion the stupidity of the Bush lies for war Edwards, Bayh and Lieberman bear a culpability that shall last for eternity into the history books of this nation. No apology brings back mothers, son, husbands or fathers of hundreds of thousands of dead and dying corpses on the bloody altar of American Empire. Your disregard shames every military person who volunteered their lives to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and Domestic. An apology a day brings none of the lives lost back or reattaches a severed limb. To view them as merely stepping stones to a presidency means the seeker is not worthy. Atonement takes time and for those sincere in that regard there will not be enough time left on the planet to ensure that their sacrifices are sincerely honored. That is the cost and the shame that each aye voter is destined to bear into Eternity and rightfully so. LBJ, McNamara, were Democrats as well and now 40 years later, they of this era shall bear it as they put the millstone of accountability around their necks willingly by cheapening the Constitution and not adhering to their sworn oaths.

The way forward is not to forget nor immediately reward those who have contributed to such an appalling set of circumstances that the country is now in because of heedless and cowardly actions in the name of ambition of self. They were elected to protect and defend the core principles of Democracy and they failed, miserably. Too bad you say it is time to float our boats forward on a river of blood sacrificed by people who should be forgotten.

The way forward says this nation and those who contributed must make reparations and honor the sacrifice. Even if it means they shall hear about it everyday of their political lives. Life and Death decisions and how we make them is for all to review. Too bad some want to Tivo through other people lives so they can avoid the gory parts of what has been wrought in our names.