Just how 'thick' are DUers? the IWR thing

[sjdnb]

1) Bush is the criminal - he ignored/manipulated the law to suit his agenda;
2) Not one Dem voted to invade Iraq - they voted to compel Saddam to adhere to UN resolutions

Read the freakin bill sometime ... it's here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ114:

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

BTW - at the same time the GOP was the majority and a lot of Americans were buying gas masks and kits because the entire country was overcome with fear - partly due to 9/11, but primarily due to Bush/the GOP's unending drumbeat of they are out to kill us. It was not until much later that we learned that they were full of $hit.

[Moochy]

1. Her Best Vote

She should be proud! or not.

[CTLawGuy]

2. where in the bill, which you allegedly read,

does it compel saddam to adhere to UN resolutions?

and why did you post the WPA statutory authorization clause? that just says that the bill is a war authorization under the War Powers Act. It has nothing to do with Saddam or anything substantive.

[1corona4u]

14. It's in the IWR...apparently you didn't read it...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[CTLawGuy]

21. you just linked to a copy of the text

don't ask me to prove a negative...

where does it force saddam to comply with UN resolutions?

It gives the president the power to "enforce" (whatever that means - I guess he's supposed to decide) UN resolutions, but that's not the same thing. Also he has the power to "protect" the US from the "growing threat" from Iraq.

[1corona4u]

26. It's the fricken resolution...

what don't you understand??

[CTLawGuy]

59. I want it pointed out

where the resolution forces saddam to comply with UN inspections.

[SOS]

71. Read the resolution carefully. There were NO conditions of any kind.

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 his 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.

Again, Bush is asked only to inform Congress of his determination prior to attacking Iraq. The 48 hour notification was the only legally binding condition in the law and Bush complied.
Kennedy and Byrd were right. It was a blank check.

[calmblueocean]

95. You should really give this post its own thread to remind people.

There are so many Hillary supporters now defending her vote for giving the president this authority -- they should really have to confront the language she actually voted for, and see if it doesn't change their minds.

[xultar]

105. IT won't change anything because...regardless of the words they will read what they want.

[DemCam]

111. No...sigh...there are too many issues confronting us NOW

The biggest one being not electing the NO.1 liberal Senator to
represent us in the GE. Our country is NOT liberal and has not been
in my lifetime. The sooner we face that the better positioned we
will be come November.

I know, I know...reason doesn't trump emotion. another sigh

[AX10]

3. There are a ton of left wing purists around here...

who hate Hillary. They want someone who gives them everything they want including making themselves feel good.

[Moochy]

4. Today in Iraq.. people feeling good!

Recent events
Wednesday 30 January: 19 dead

Baghdad: bomb kills policeman; 3 bodies.

Ninewa

Mosul: gunmen kill University of Mosul professor and one of his students; civilian killed during clashes between police and gunmen; 2 bodies.

Diyala

Bardaniya: gunmen attack house, kill occupant.
Khalis: gunmen set up fake checkpoint, kill man in his car.
Aswad: gunmen kill 2 Awakening members.
Khan Bani Saad: gunmen kill policeman.

Anbar

Karmah: 2 Awakening members killed by roadside bomb.

Kirkuk

Tuz Khurmato: 2 heads found.

Salahuddin

Dhuluiya: body found.

[rodeodance]

8. What do you want from her at this point?

[Moochy]

11. I want her to win the Vice Presidency

Thats the more powerful position these days anyways.

[rodeodance]

28. ha ha--ok. but no, she is it to win--as is obama.

[Moochy]

30. Will she reduce the power of the imperial presidency?

Or use those powers for good?

[rodeodance]

32. She has spoken out his overuse--power grabs. She works with people,

congress--negotiates. that is all i have seen her do.

[Moochy]

33. Same Question for Obama

Which of the two would be most likely to restore the checks and balances to executive power?

[rodeodance]

41. Hillary--and i did try to check my bias. There is something about Obama and his quick rise and

his aura that tells me he likes to be on top just tooooooo much (IMHO).

[Moochy]

48. I'm not sure either way..

That's one thing that worries me about the next (R) president.. the precedents set by Cheney/Bush, and not rolled back by Whichever Democrat wins in 2008.

I too am a bit sketchy about the meteoric rise. oh well. I just know that I can't stand when people try to sell the lie here that IWR was not a vote for war.

[knight_of_the_star]

46. Such power is never good

The Presidency should not be as powerful as it is right now and must be rolled back if justice is to prevail in this country.

[DJ13]

16. "left wing purists"

Your choice of words speak volumes on the the way Hillary supporters expect her to govern.

[AX10]

22. But Obama, you guy, wants to include all.

Or so he claims. Are you saying that Obama's "unity" theme is nonsense then?
Sounds like it.

[rodeodance]

31. I can't speak for that post, but for me a purist in this case is one who wants

Hill down on her knees gaveling.

[sfam]

5. Bush IS the Criminal. But Hillary was an enabler...

She didn't vote her conscience - pure and simple. She Triangulated the issue. No, she's not responsible for the 2 trillion in debt and the many thousands of lives dead. But she did help with the enabling process that prompted this fiasco.

[1corona4u]

17. ...

She wasn't alone....

[CTLawGuy]

the IWR vote was

77 - 23 IIRC. 99-1 sounds like Scalia's confirmation vote...

[1corona4u]

36. Possibly...

think I copied that from the wrong thing. But, she wasn't alone...

I'm just not going to keep reliving it though. Nothing will change what happened.

[KittyWampus]

6. Sorry, that train left the station years ago. Any DU'ers trying to spin in that direction

are most likely hypocrites.

How do I know?

Because I essentially said the same thing as your opening post. And further, saying the Dems voted for the Iraq War is letting Bush off the hook.

DU'ers overwhelmingly smacked me down. And I mean OVERWHELMINGLY.

They pulled out arcane lines in the Resolution just PROVING me wrong.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt on DU.

Not now.

Bet a lot of Hillary supporters are sorry they went down that road several years ago.

Yes, I've been here on DU that long.

[joshcryer]

7. Someone prove to me that Bush needed the IWR to invade Iraq again.

He didn't.

[CTLawGuy]

10. US Constitution Article I

Section 8: Powers of Congress

1. The Congress shall have the power...

...

11. To declare War...

[knight_of_the_star]

12. Ok next question

Was there ever a declaration of war on North Korea? How about Panama? LBJ didn't need a declaration of war to get us into Vietnam, he just got his Tonkin Resolution to justify it and make everything all nice and legal.

[Moochy]

13. Yeah, others started illegal wars,

so... why hold that against today's leaders!??

[CTLawGuy]

15. Gulf of Tonkin resolution =

de facto declaration of war. as is IWR. But the President cannot start wars on his own. If so, why give the Congress the power to declare war?

[knight_of_the_star]

38. Actually they can

See the Mexican-American War, where President Polk stationed US troops in disputed territory then did everything he could to provoke the Mexicans into attacking US forces then used that as the causus belli for the war. Or how about with the Vietnam War where US troops were already over there and the Navy was out shooting at Gods know what in North Vietnamese waters and were attacked by NV aircraft in retaliation. Or how Ray-Gun without declaration invaded Grenada. Those all look to me like starting wars without Congressional approval to start a war.

[CTLawGuy]

60. it's called violating the constitution

but the president can call troops to defend against an imminent threat or an invasion.

Assuming arguendo that Bush could have started the war anyway, that's no reason for dems to put their fingerprints all over it.

[knight_of_the_star]

64. Which has been done before

See the Espionage Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jackson's reaction to Cherokee v. Georgia, there's a long list of cases like that. People can't claim that they wouldn't expect someone pushing so hard for the war to toe the legal line if he thought he could get away with it.

[joshcryer]

89. No Dem should've voted for it, but they did for political reasons. Similarily as to how...

...so many dems vote for funding even though not funding it would be the quickest way to get out. It's all politics.

Bush could've invaded because we were still at war with Iraq.

[joshcryer]

87. We were still at war with Iraq, what's what Bush was arguing. For diplomatic reasons the Senate...

...decided to write up a resolution to make it "clean" rather than going on 10 year old resolutions.

[joshcryer]

85. We're still technically at war with North Korea. The President could attack NK at any time.

And it would be within legal laws.

[joshcryer]

83. We were already at war with Iraq.

[1corona4u]

25. He didn't ....he was going in anyway...

Just ask Paul O'Neill...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

[joshcryer]

79. The gulf war resolutions were still in effect, he didn't need any resolution to go.

[Carolina]

44. and he didn't need ANY

Democratic support via 'aye'votes on IWR either!

[joshcryer]

81. Indeed he didn't. Everyone could've voted no, and practically everyone could've voted no...

...on the funding laws.

[sjdnb]

18. Just because you get 'smacked down' doesn't mean you were wrong

I was there, too. I read the freakin legislation, followed CSpan like a coonhound -- and, I guaran-freakin-tee, that NO ONE, expected Bush to obfuscate/interpret/manipulate/criminally disregard the intent/requirements of the bill into an invasion of Iraq.

[Moochy]

23. WTF??

Is this a serious post?

Shills like this with opposite-memory really are the downfall of this place.

[1corona4u]

42. Shill? Because they don't agree with you?

[Moochy]

50. To me that means

means that you are a self-selected hyper-partisan who ignores the facts.

You especially... to sell lies here like "IWR was not a vote to go to war"

[1corona4u]

76. Well, sorry, it wasn't.

You seem to be the one ignoring the facts...

[rodeodance]

oh my gawd--I laughted out loud when I read you subject line. BRAVO

[eridani]

55. Bush intended the invasion from the day of his inauguration

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or an idiot.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

107. OH MY FUCKING GOD!

You didn't just really say that?!?!?!?! Please, please PLEASE tell me I am reading that wrong!!!!!!!!!!

"...NO ONE, expected Bush to obfuscate/interpret/manipulate/criminally disregard the intent/requirements of the bill into an invasion of Iraq."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Of all the incredibly stupid bullshit I have ever read in DU, I really think this one takes the cake!! :D

Good god, and we thought Bush groupies were a bunch of brain-addled dumbfucks....

[Moochy]

108. What's the opposite of a DUzy... ?

You are so right.... that post is truly worthy of framing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

110. Whatever that award is...

that post DESERVES it! :D

Man oh man, I am still stitting here with my jaw on the floor. Truly unbelieveable...

:hi:

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Excuse me but

You have to remember a little detail called a MASSIVE anti-war movement that was screaming at the top of their lungs during the run-up that this was a STUPID idea. She triangulated on this issue as opposed to genuinely making the decision based on her conscience and if she still pays for it so be it. Its not just the vote that's the issue, its that now during the campaign she is STILL trying to have it both ways on her vote and on the issue and that's the part that is especially galling.

[Carolina]

54. exactly

You are so right, and that is why I can't stand her. She triangulates and "is STILL trying to have it both ways on her vote and on the issue"... It is so galling.

And yes, I am a purist about the war because of the all the death, destruction, waste and effect on everything else.

[Skwmom]

19. It was a VOTE for War. Have you read your constitution lately?

Under the Constitution only CONGRESS has the power to declare war. How stupid do you think we are?

[sjdnb]

24. And, the IWR was NOT congress declaring war

How stupid do you think you are?

[rodeodance]

35. there sure are a lot o Du'er's who keep throwing that out. Can't seem to get past it to

have any of discussion

[1corona4u]

49. That's not entirely true...

read the war powers resolution;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[beachmom]

20. Nope. Not going to work. Kerry said it was wrong. So did Edwards.

Where is Clinton on it?

[sjdnb]

34. Politically convenient memories/mea culpas are not what this country needs

What we need is someone willing to stand up and denounce Bush and his Admin/Lackeys for what they are --- abusers/manipulators/liars/law ignoring/Constitution dissing criminals.

The IWR of 2002 was misused/misinterpreted/abused/ignored by the criminal Bush Admin.

[ErnestoG]

43. You saying Edwards wasn't honest in renouncing his war vote?

Oh that's gonna go over well with Edwards voters you are trying to woo.

I hope you never work on a campaign.

[sjdnb]

61. I don't try to 'woo' anyone ....

I'm a worker bee - not a manipulating bee,

And, as an Edwards supporter, this is one point I think he was wrong on. He should have laid the blame for the Iraq War where it belonged -- at Bush's feet.

[Carolina]

62. no the Bushies knew exactly what they were doing

and intended to do, and those who enabled them with their 'aye' votes are culpable. They aided known liars and cheaters who literally stole power in 2000.

Only belatedly, well after public opinion about the war flagged, did HRC speak out againt Bush on it saying such crap as the war was managed wrongly.

No, it was a lie from the start because Iraq was never an imminent threat to the US!

HRC and her supporters can spin the vote and all her twisted comments about it, but blood is on her hands, too.

[rodeodance]

i am thinking in 04 is was a bit easier. Too much has happened since then. Graveling

in the mud to please RWers and certain DU'er's is NOT the answer.

[paulk]

104. so does saying it was "wrong"

absolve Kerry and Edwards of their "yes" votes?

Clinton has said that, given the information she has now, she would have voted against the resolution. Is there some qualitative difference between that and Edward's/Kerry's mea culpas that I'm missing?

[zulchzulu]

27. My puppy knew that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq

Hillary was a SUCKER and actually a warmonger who wanted to strap on some balls to play with the big boys with her cheap steak tough shtick to vote FOR a trillion dollar war with a million dead. She was either thick in her judgment or she doesn't give a shit about the troops she sent in harm's way to amp up her career.

Anyone who is an enabler in this psychopathic behavior is either too thick to know the difference or has a compartmentalized morally subjective mind.

[rodeodance]

53. well, your little puppy is so smart.

[Moochy]

93. Apparently smarter than the OP who had no clue that Bush would invade

Noone here either knew.. nope nobody.

From your imagination to reality! Rewriting history is that easy!

It's not a trick.

It's just a simple trick!

[Carolina]

66. Exactly!

She showed poor judgment, no leadership (only followship) and moral as well as political cowardice.

Iraq was not an imminent threat, there was no need for a resolution and voting for IWR meant war no matter what spin she said then and tries now.

So many of us were not fooled then when it mattered, before so much death, destruction and loss of goodwill and treasury. Why was someone who is purportedly so smart and ready to lead. Fuck that shit.

[jasmine621]

29. You might want to e-mail this to Rachel Madow and KO. Will help

their emotional state. I think they are going to have a heart attack attacking Hillary on this.

[rodeodance]

56. glad I did not watch.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

37. you're right of course

[ErnestoG]

39. DUers are smart enough to see a Dem candidate with Bush's self righteous arrogant stubbornness

Like Hillary, when she won't renounce her war vote.

[Moochy]

82. Not if these AstroTurf Garden Gnomes are to be believed

[Yossariant]

40. Knock! Knock! Voters don't give a damn about the IRW or care much about Iraq.

[ErnestoG]

47. Knock Knock, you're WRONG!

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/october/102907poll-issues.html

Do you even THINK before posting?

[Yossariant]

65. Do try to keep up, please.

Pocketbook worries outweigh voters' concerns over war in Iraq

By JIM KUHNHENN and TREVOR TOMPSON

WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters began to worry more about their pocketbooks over the last month — even more than about the war in Iraq.

More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News now say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them...


http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-voter-worries

[ErnestoG]

98. Which means I was right the first time!

1. Economy 2. Iraq War.

How else could I make you understand this? Braille?

[zulchzulu]

51. Yeah, it only costs $4000 a second... we have plenty of money to throw around...

:sarcasm:

The only voters who don't give a damn are Hillary apologists and Repug warmongers.

[Moochy]

52. And nights like this

its hard to tell the difference

[Yossariant]

67. YAWN. See #65.

[Carolina]

70. how nice for some

who don't have loved ones there or who haven't been touched by this disaster.

Just because the media says it's off the radar screen doesn't mean it doesn't matter to voters.

The media cares more about Brittany Spears and Keith Ledger, and Anna Nicole's baby daddy and Branjolina and handshake snubs and... bullshit

But the war matters to alot of people who vote!

[Yossariant]

75. Not some, but most. Some facts are nice; some are not nice.. It is what it is.

[never_get_over_it]

45. Apparently not as thick as you

edit to fix links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4325411&mesg_id=4325901

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4325561&mesg_id=4326202

The Congress people who voted YES were wrong and so was Bush and just what have these freaks in Congress done in the past year to put an end to this travesty....PLEASE they were and are enablers and blood is on their hands....

GET A CLUE REAL PEOPLE DIED lots and lots of REAL PEOPLE while you make excuses for these pathetic pukes....oh and by the way the GOP was NOT in the majority in the Senate at the time of this vote - Tom Daschle was majority leader -

[sjdnb]

58. And said

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

I was anti-war from the start -- but, am not so condescending as to not understand how some of the best and brightest Dems among us would have voted in the affirmative - expecting Bush to comply with the underlying intent and requirements of the legislation.

We'd only gone through two years of Bush, and that included 9/11, we were shaken and still had hope that he wasn't going to turn out to be the complete a$$hole that he obviously has.

[Dr Fate]

63. It was not a prudent, intelligent decision to trust Bush & Co.

The Democratic base and anti-war folks knew it. The "yes" voters ignored us and sided with Bush. They were 100% wrong. Dead wrong.

Anyone with a brain knew he was a corrupt liar hell bent on power after he STOLE the 2000 election.

I'm not sure why the DEMS who are still hard-headed on the war deserve to have these excuses made for them.

[sjdnb]

68. So what? Just like JE, Nadar, and Gore

anyone supporting positions that don't serve those with real power will continue to be ignored. It wasn't Kerry, Edwards or Clinton who voted for war -- it was Bush Jr., ignoring the Constitution/legislation, once again, who did that.

[Moochy]

86. So Why Bother Trying to Ever Do The Right Thing?

[Dr Fate]

91. They should have voted "no", but instead they voted "yes."

I knew Bush would use it to go to war, so did most folks at home watching. I remember calling DEMS and begging them to vote "no" for that very reason.

[Moochy]

92. No you didnt

didnt you read in this thread that noone knew that bush was going to war? I read it on DU!

[Dr Fate]

94. LOL! And no one could have guessed that he was a corrupt liar on a power trip.

Certainly not after he ran such an above board election in 2000, followed by 2 subsequent years of harmonious, measured governance. ;)

[PassingFair]

100. No one could have foreseen.....

:eyes:

[never_get_over_it]

96. HE STOLE THE FUCKING ELECTION

do you think we should have trusted him on anything - get your head out of your ass and stop defending these people they don't deserve it

you are actually defending people who for POLITICAL REASONS did and CONTINUE to enable this invasion that has caused such destruction - really what is wrong with you - over a million people - real honest to god people with hopes and dreams and kids and lives and that had done NOTHING to us are DEAD DEAD DEAD what don't you understand - THEY WERE WRONG - JESUS H CHRIST

If 23 Senators and I don't remember the number of House members knew it was wrong - I knew it was wrong and lots of other people knew it was - the others should have to... my GOD this is UFB there is just no excusing it.....I can get behind the ones that will at least admit they made a mistake - but making fucking excuses shows a complete lack of character....

I really don't understand people who make excuses instead of taking responsibility -

[Individualist]

106. The chimperor's character was well known around the beltway

prior to his 2001 inauguration, specifically the fact that he was a KNOWN LIAR!

[Carolina]

73. love your post!

totally agree:

"The Congress people who voted YES were wrong and so was Bush and just what have these freaks in Congress done in the past year to put an end to this travesty....PLEASE they were and are enablers and blood is on their hands..."

[Dr Fate]

57. My barber and my bartender knew it was a vote for war. So did most middle-school civics students.

So did everyone in the media and so did every Republican that Hillary joined with a "yes" vote.

I remember it playing out on DU, and most everyone here knew what was being spelled out too. And we were 100% correct.

So the DLC/Lieberman/"centrist" wing of the party has their excuses lined up- they are wrong as usual. As wroing as they were when they voted "yes" instead of "no." What is new?

It's a s simple as this: She voted "yes" but she should have voted "no."

[sjdnb]

72. Oh please, everyone in the 'media' was playing

the apocalypse now soundtrack behind images of exploding ordinance.

All the while, reinforcing how noble the quest was.

[Moochy]

78. Maybe hilary should have watched less TV

and read more legislation.

[Dr Fate]

84. Exactly- b/c they knew they would get their war. (ie ratings)

The media knew the vote would lead to war, and so did everyone at home watching it play out. Hint- So did the "yes" voting DEMS.

I'm not sure where we disagree on this point.

[PassingFair]

74. They think we don't remember, or we weren't paying attention.

I had to pull my CAR OVER because I was CRYING when the votes
were being read and I realized that so many DEMOCRATS were
giving him the green light for invasion.

If you didn't know what a YES vote meant you were NOT
paying attention. PERIOD.

Dems who voted yes thought they were making a politically
expedient bet.

They MOSTLY voted along DLC/Blue Dog lines, too.

The majority of SITTING dems in the Senate who remain
voted NAY, by the way.

And the MAJORITY OF DEMS in the HOUSE voted NAY as well.

[Dr Fate]

88. I remember being on DU that day, and everyone predicting the coming war. We were 100% right.

We were also 100% right about the WMDs- something else the conservative DEMS were dead wrong on.

[PassingFair]

90. The DLC WANTED to invade.

No doubt in my mind.

[ErnestoG]

99. Damn straight they did.

no matter how much distance their candidate wants to put between that act and themselves.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

69. The War Powers Act allows the President to use the U.S. military for 60 days

before it being required that Congress must officially declare war. It also grants the President a 30 day extension upon his request, whether or not the Congress agrees. Modern wars like the invasion of Iraq are over in a handful of days. The IWR put no condition on the President. Instead, it specifically stated that he could use the U.S. military "as he deems necessary and appropriate". It merely stated that he had to submit a report within 48 hours after the initiation of military action at the latest. Bush submitted his letter, dated March 13, stating that he saw no further purpose in seeking a diplomatic solution. That's all he was required to do under the blank check that some in the Congress gave to him. And the Congress chose to take no further action after that.

[MontecitoDem]

77. I thought at the time it was a vote for War, lots of us did!

It's great to go back and try to finesse it, but I remember at the time thinking it was a vote for war - being absolutely disheartened with our party for acting like sheep, except for my Congresswoman, Lois Capps, and people like Robert Byrd who also saw it for what it was. The elected dems were mostly just marching along in line with the prez and fear-mongerers, but your average democratic activist like me was outraged by that vote, then and now. No amount of spin today changes the way I saw it then, as it happened. Sorry! She was wrong and she should just admit it.

otherwise, she had a great debate. I will be happy to support her in the GE, if she is our candidate!

[SOS]

80. Speaking of "thick"

1) Bush is the criminal - he ignored/manipulated the law to suit his agenda

Wrong. He followed the letter of the law and upheld it's one condition. The law allowed him to attack Iraq based only on "his determination".

2) Not one Dem voted to invade Iraq - they voted to compel Saddam to adhere to UN resolutions

Wrong. You can't use the word "compel" because Congress only "supported the efforts" of the President to enforce relevant UN resolutions.
There was nothing in the law to compel Saddam to do anything.

Read the freakin bill sometime.

[sjdnb]

97. Sorry, I'm not a Bush worshipper ... he IS a criminal and DID

manipulate the law to serve his agenda ... you actually reinforce my point although I doubt you intended to. But, if you want to keep attacking the Dems who were there, to make GW Bush look like the 'hero', so be it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

101. Joseph Lieberman was the chief sponsor of the Senate version of the IWR

He doesn't strike me as someone who wants nice diplomatic solutions. He's a neocon and warmonger. The IWR bill had no preconditions and no limits on the President's ability to take action. Lieberman was the criminal for drafting a terrible bill that gave Bush a blank check. Bush was the asshole who lied to America about the various reasons for going to war like Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes, the mushroom cloud, etc. Bush twisted the arms of some in the Senate, who preferred to go to war instead of taking a gamble on Bush being right about the WMD. It Bush's lies had been true, it would have ended many Senate careers. Twenty-three members of the Senate saw through those lies and also realized that they were being asked to sign on to a blank check for war. Bush and Lieberman were the number one criminals. But those who voted in favor of their open-ended bill are complicit as well.

[SOS]

102. Bush is not a criminal in regard to the text of the AuMF. Period.

You are conflating the execution of the invasion/occupation under Cheney/Rumsfeld with the law.
We are discussing the AuMF here and in no way did Bush violate the AuMF.
It was a blank check crafted by Bush's lawyers. He was covered.
All he had to do was inform Congress of his decision to attack, which he did 48 hours prior.

It is not possible to "manipulate" the AuMF. It's a very straightforward text.
Since you are an expert who suggests we "read the fricken bill", why no response to my post #71?

To say that I am a "Bush worshipper" who makes Bush "look like a hero" is too ridiculous to seriously address.

[Bread and Circus]

103. have you ever heard of a nod and a wink? because that's what Bush was doing

when he was asking for permission.

We knew that war was inevitable. So did Clinton.

[Nimrod2005]

109. You are a fool

[sjdnb]

112. What part of NOTHING in the resolution was to

supersede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. didn't you get?

Ref: The War Powers Resolution:
"The details of the War Powers Act, however, have usually been honored in the breach. But in this latest case, Congress wrote the empowering resolution specifically confining military action against "nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists ... or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" by them.

Such language, as Mr. Feingold noted in response to the Times story, makes it imperative that unless the administration can establish Iraqi complicity in the events of Sept. 11, the administration will be obliged to go back to Congress for new authorization of any invasion or other assault on that country.

An administration spokesman at Mr. Feingold's earlier hearings, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, insisted, however, that the president is not bound by the War Powers Act requiring specific congressional approval because of his constitutional powers as commander in chief."

So, Bush ignored the War Powers Act and Hillary is being blamed for that?