Have people who voted FOR this war in the first place disqualified themselves?

[CTLawGuy]

If people are saying that candidates should be disqualified from our consideration because they didn't come out against the funding (not "AT ALL") but rather "NOT FAST ENOUGH", what about those who voted to start this horrible war in the first place?

There are NO good solutions to Iraq right now, only the best of bad ones. The only GOOD solution was to NOT GO IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's a bit hypocritical to be mad over not coming out against the funding fast enough, while praising Dodd and Edwards who voted to reject the BEST option for Iraq, NOT GOING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[tabasco]

1. IMO, yes.

Lest we forget the folks who handed a loaded gun to a madman.

[GreenArrow]

2. as far as I'm concerned, Yes

They can all go take a walk.

[blm]

3. That would be true if you really believed the IWR took this country to war.

I believe the IWR's guidelines for weapon inspections were working to prove military force was NOT NEEDED, so Bush lied in violation of the IWR's directive for him to make a determination AFTER weapon inspections and diplomatic measures informed his decision.

Bush should have been impeached by now for VIOLATING the IWR with his decision to lie about the national security danger. But the IWR = War and deserves all the blame meme won out long ago. That happens when the corporate media storyline preferred by the WH gets adopted by the right and the left.

[CTLawGuy]

4. the IWR said Jack SHIT about weapons inspections

all it did was give Bush the authority to go to war, that's it!

[blm]

9. Use of original UN resolution in IWR is the guideline used to put inspectors back in

and increase diplomatic measures BEFORE Bush was to make his determination.

I hope you don't complain that Bush lied or should be impeached for lying when he made that determination, since you also blame the IWR for forcing poor Bush to go to war.

[CTLawGuy]

11. you proved a LONG time ago

that you have NO understanding of IWR. It doesn't FORCE bush to go to war, it gave him Congress' power to make the decision to go to war.

There is no requirement for Bush's determination that diplomatic measures won't work. A determination is a conclusory statement of opinion. There was no requirement that he wait for inspectors to go back in, there was NO mention of inspectors at ALL in the operative clasues of the IWR.

[blm]

15. I am not the one treating the IWR as if it took this country to war. It didn't.

In fact, Bush's signing statement to the IWR proved they had no need for the IWR and already had determined they had the legal cover.

The IWR was POLITICAL cover given the accurate expectation of the corporate media's acceptance of their preferred storyline and the left's acceptance of the media's promoted storyline that the IWR had no guidelines for Bush whatsoever.

[CTLawGuy]

21. look at the text of the resolution

there are NO constraints on Bush, he would NOT HAVE SIGNED IT IF THERE WERE ANY MEANINGFUL CONSTRAINTS ON IT!!!!!!!!

[blm]

25. You can write any stricter resolution and Bush would've violated it - as he did to the UN

when THEY, too, gave him a resolution to go into Iraq that called for him to return to them at the UN and instead Bush invaded without doing so.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Hey there, straw-man!

Forcing Bush to go to war?

Surely, you know better than that!

[SOS]

26. There were NO legally binding conditions whatsoever.

Let's look at the actual law:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

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.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether the non-existent "efforts" had met with success.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

They kindly asked to be informed as to when Bush was starting the war.

Senator Byrd was right. It was a blank check.

[rinsd]

5. "There are NO good solutions to Iraq right now, only the best of bad ones."

Agreed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. It is 2007. Are we supposed to live in 2002 forever?

It seems backers of one candidate seem to be pushing the "2002 forever" standard. That is telling. Let's rely on what happened half a decade ago and ignore what he is doing today and going forward (why? because his record is identical on Iraq to HRC's since he joined the Senate)...

[CTLawGuy]

8. yes

none of these votes comes close to that cowardice back in 2002. It was a complete abdication of responisibility by Congress with JRE at the forefront (co-sponsoring IWR no less).

Sorry, JRE shat the bed back then and all the downplaying in the world is not going to change that.

[FrenchieCat]

12. No, we're supposed to flush 2002 down the memory hole, and act

like it isn't why we are where we are right now! :sarcasm:

The Repugs say "don't look back" cause they have nothing to gain from it. I'm surprised that Dems would also say this just to give a candidate a "pass"...which really is the only explanation for not wanting to hold those accountable that should be.

Encouraging a war has not statute of limitation on it, last I looked! I'm into multitasking! I'll look forward and back all at the same time. Wearing blinders in reference to the recent past, and rose colored glasses for the short term future is a fool's errand....cause at the end of the day, you still can't see what's directly in front of you; cowardise political calculation of the highest order!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Even if Edwards, HRC, Biden, and Dodd voted against the war the IWR would have passed

Undoubtedly they were wrong in 2002 but let's not exaggerate the significance of their votes. It isn't as if they provided the crucial swing votes for the war. Wasn't the vote for the IWR something like 77-23?

We should factor in what candidates did half a decade ago, a decade ago, even thirty years ago (such as voting for a Republican conservative for president ;) ). However, we should not place preemptive importance on the past. It is irrational to vote for a candidate who is wrong in 2007 and has the wrong plan for the future simply because he was correct at one given point in time.

Using the "2002 forever" standard even RFK would not pass muster. RFK originally supported the Vietnam war. It is ironic that this new standard (which incidentally is usually promoted by supporters of a certain candidate who happened to be correct five years ago. Why? Because it is the only thing that distinguishes his record on the war from HRC. Ever since he joined the senate he has had essentially the same record on the war as HRC, who is the bete noire of the anti-war progressive wing of the party.) would leave even the most iconic anti-war candidate in American history out in the cold...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. You're a Clark supporter, right?

Clark voted for Reagan over Carter, Reagan over Mondale, and Bush over Dukakis. As recently as 2001 he praised Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and co. at a Republican fundraiser. He didn't even register as a Democrat until he began running for president (yes, I know that most people in Arkansas register as an independent but obviously there are some who register as a Democrat. Clark was not among these people until he began running for the Democratic nomination for president). I see several Clark supporters consistently criticize Edwards for his past. That is fair. However, Clark's past--even what he did in 2001 when both parties were courting him to run for office--evidently is subject to a statute of limitations that begins running, ironically, in 2002 of all years...

For the record, I don't hold Clark's past against him. I hope he runs this year. He will add a lot to the race. He would make a good president, although it seems that he is more likely to become VP than prez. I just find the separate standards for Edwards (who's never spoken at a Republican fundraiser) and Clark used by some Clark backers to be odd.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Believe me, you can hold Clark accountable for being in the military

for 34 years and being registered as an independent,i.e., non-partisan.

So yes, you are correct, there is not statute of limitation...and so you can hold Clark accountable for what he did 27 years ago, or what he did 6 years ago.

So please hold Wes Clark accountable for voting Reagan in 1980 (when reagan, a former Democrat won in a landslide, partially from his promise to rebuild the military), since that is what he openly and honestly stated that he did...and a fact that no one would know had Wes not made the statement in 2003.

On the other hand, St. John Edwards can't remember who he voted for his first ever vote, while the Vietnam war was raging, and he was on a college campus and Nixon and McGovern were running....but oh well, so what?

And certainly you can also hold Wes Clark accountable for giving a speech at each a GOP and a DEM fundraiser in 2001, in where, as the freshly retired apolitical NATO Commander of Europe who had just won our last war under a Democratic administration gave an identical speech at each function encouraging the new administration in keeping good NATO country relations. He hasn't apologized for this, because there is no need. The "Much to do about" phrase called a "praise" goes like this.....

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe. We've got -- (applause) We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans, where we still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well I, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United States and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest." --Wes Clark on 5/11/01 (GOP Lincoln Day Dinner) and on 5/14/01 Blanche Lincoln for Senate Fundraiser)

And so I see no problems or contradictions here.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. No problem with speaking at a Republican fundraiser in 2001?

==So please hold Wes Clark accountable for voting Reagan in 1980 (when reagan, a former Democrat won in a landslide, partially from his promise to rebuild the military), since that is what he openly and honestly stated that he did...and a fact that no one would know had Wes not made the statement in 2003.==

So what if Reagan was a former Democrat? He was a Goldwater conservative by the 60's. Clark didn't vote for the Reagan of 1940 but the Goldwater Republican of 1980. If Reagan ran today he would be to the right of Bush, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson. Rebuild the military? That has familiar ring to it. Bush ran on that in 2000 and Romney is doing to now. The fact is we had the world's strongest military in 1980, in 2000, and still do today. "Rebuilding the military" is an election year ploy Republicans use to win votes and also justify them funneling more tax dollars to defense contractors. It isn't as if the military was decaying under Carter (who also increased the defense budget at the end of his term) and Clark had no choice but to vote for Reagan.

==On the other hand, St. John Edwards can't remember who he voted for his first ever vote, while the Vietnam war was raging, and he was on a college campus and Nixon and McGovern were running....but oh well, so what?==

You're comparing Clark voting for Reagan at ages 36, 40, and Bush at 44 years old with what Edwards did while in his early 20's? There is a significant difference. Many people are not political at that age. More importantly, many, perhaps most, people don't have their worldview solidified in their early 20's. They generally do when they are in their 40's.

==And certainly you can also hold Wes Clark accountable for giving a speech at each a GOP and a DEM fundraiser in 2001,==

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser doesn't erase Clark apparently not being affiliated with either party as recently as six years ago. If he is such a staunch Democrat, such a progressive, why did it take him until 2003 to figure it out? It seems he kept his options open in 2001 when both parties were courting him to run for office in Arkansas...

=="And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush==

That speaks for itself. Great team? George Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney? Did any people who were Democrats in 2001 praise this "great team" at the time? While Democrats (even Holy Joe) were fighting against Bush's reckless tax cuts and other parts of the Bush agenda in 2001, Clark was praising Bush and the rest of his "great team"...

[FrenchieCat]

36. You need to change your name, cause honest like cuomo, you ain't.....

You should hold who you want to for what you want in reference to accountability. I have no say-so as to what you determine is important in the larger scheme of things. If you think that Clark's Reagan vote is important, so be it (Clark never said he voted for Bush I, just for your information).

And to be honest with you, I don't give a shit "who" Edwards voted for at any point in time. However, I do care that he voted 5 years ago for a war that he is now basically marching against, and attempting to hold those still in congress accountable for. But be glad, you don't have to if you don't want to.


In reference to Clark's speech, You did the Good Ol' Party schtick, by using the == after Bush's name, when words and punctuations were actually spoken and exists. In fact YOUR == actually stand for a period. And the next sentence is, "We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

So in other words, context means nothing to you, which is why if I were Cuomo, I wouldn't necessarily want you as my namesake! If your case is to be taken with any seriousness, than you are proposing that Clark's words spoken on May of 2001 are somehow more of a praise than Edwards words and actions in 2002, hey?

Democratic Hopefuls Back Bush on Iraq; Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards Support Launching Preemptive Strike
President Bush is winning surprisingly strong support for his confrontational policy toward Iraq from an unlikely corner: the Democrats who may challenge him in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Bush received strong support this week from such Democrats as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. John Edwards (D- N.C.) and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), whom one White House official yesterday described as "one of the great leaders" on Iraq now.

The positions adopted by the prospective Democratic candidates reflect the impact of the terrorist attacks of last Sept. 11 on the public psyche; a liberal wing of the party that is less vociferously antiwar and more supportive of taking action against human rights violators such as Hussein; and memories of the 1991 congressional debate and vote on over whether to go to war with Iraq. That vote left most Democrats, including Kerry, Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), on the wrong side of a popular war.

Edwards...embraced the concept at the heart of Bush's posture, that the United States should be prepared to act alone against Iraq if it cannot win adequate support from the United Nations.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-376245.html

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat," and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Claiming that U.S. national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

----------

Edwards doing what he does best, pandering to whomever he thinks holds the key to his winning the coveted office of the Presidency. Back in 2002, he had a different "angle"....

Edwards gets in tune with rural voters.
(Knight Ridder Newspapers)
Date: September 11, 2002 | Author: Hurt, Charles

Edwards had hired the band to perform at a Washington fund-raiser for Ben Jones, who is running for Congress in Virginia. That's the same Ben Jones who played Cooter, the country mechanic in the 1980s good ol' boy TV hit "The Dukes of Hazzard."

The event was sponsored by Edwards' political action committee, New American Optimists, and is part of a key strategy Edwards is rolling out in his 2004 campaign for president.

Aiming to buck a 20-year trend, Edwards _ a Democrat _ is courting the conservative rural voters who are some of the Republican Party's most reliable. The effort could make some traditional Democrats a bit squeamish, however, because it embraces gun ownership rights and trumpets cultural passions such as NASCAR that might be viewed by some as unsophisticated.

Regardless of whether it succeeds, the strategy is already being closely watched by top Democrats nationwide.

"He may love bluegrass and he may love NASCAR, but he's going to have to prove it. It's simply deceitful to try to present yourself in a way that doesn't match up with who you are."

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91380449.html

[Adelante]

7. My primary vote, yes

It is unavailable to IWR Yes voters, in general.

[Cameron27]

10. It disqualifies them from my vote in the primaries.

[jcrew2001]

13. Only red state senators are disqualified because they

have to listen to their constiuents.

The Blue state senators should be impeached.

[ElizabethDC]

14. But even blue state senators have constituents who would have supported the war

no state is completely red or completely blue, and based on polling, the war had the support of the majority of the country's population, at the time, IIRC.

On what basis should the Blue state senators be impeached? The basis that, in hindsight, we don't like the way they voted?

[jcrew2001]

16. No safe blue state Dem should support Bush, ever

Its just a matter of foresight and principle. Why aid the GOP enemy? It gives them more credibility. Just vote for Lieberman if that's your position.

[ElizabethDC]

17. But Red State Dems should do whatever it takes to keep themselves in office?

regardless of the consequences? Should they not vote their consciences, and only based on what a majority of their constituents think?

Also, the 2002 Bush was bad, but we didn't know then just how truly bad he was. Hindsight is 20/20.

And you still haven't told me on what grounds we should impeach the Blue State Dems who voted for it.

Also, what should purple state Dems have done?

IMO, the vote was the same, no matter what state you're from.

[jcrew2001]

19. Red state Dems will just be voted out of office

Look at Max Cleland. The country is divided and the Red states will Never Ever vote for a Blue State Democrat. That means another 4 years of GOP rule.

[ElizabethDC]

22. LOL, okay

so from now on, red state Dems should vote for whatever the Republicans are for. What's the point of electing Democrats in red states, then?

[jcrew2001]

27. i don't know - thats up to the red state to decide

why would any blue state elect a republican? there is no reason for a blue state to elect a republican and I feel strongly about that.

[More Than A Feeling]

23. .

[MadHound]

18. This is why I find Kucinich to be the best canidate

He has been out front and on the right side of this and many other issues since the get-go. Sad that he is getting marginilized, but heaven knows in our two party/same corporate master system of government the powers that be can't allow a man who isn't beholden to corporate America into the highest office in the land. Lord knows what would happen, peace, UHC and increased taxes for the rich, OH NO!:eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. If people want a consistent anti-war candidate they should vote for Kucinich

[More Than A Feeling]

24. No. Any other questions? n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Of Course, Yes! n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

32. It is a big black mark against them in my opinion.

I will not say it disqualifies them completely but to have been a member of the Senate at that time, to have had access to the full intelligence report which was far less alarmist than the propaganda that we the people were given, and to have voted for the war, much less to have spoken in favor of it, anyway makes me seriously doubt their judgment--no matter what they're saying now.

I want a candidate who had no role in getting us into this mess. That leaves us with the candidates who were not in Congress at the time; Obama & Gravel (Strongly opposed the war from the gitgo) and Richardson (appears to have supported the IWR, but apparently did not speak out much in favor of it at the time and was pretty nuanced in what he did say) We also have Congressman Kucinich who nobly voted against the war. If he gets in the race, of course, Al Gore was a strong opponent of the war and correctly predicted what would happen.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[LWolf]

37. None of them get my vote. n/t