I never thought that I would see the day that certain factions on DU would be DEFENDING the IWR

[Joe the Revelator]

It blows my mind that we spent two days discussing how a handshake could decide the nominee, but there is a certain faction on the board who want to tie a pretty bow around an IWR vote.

Amazing.

[Kittycat]

1. Slap in the face to every soldier that has died, been injured or mamed, and

to every one over there now.

Just sickening :(

[Joe the Revelator]

4. It really is. Partisanship should not provide a pass on basic principals

[jasmine621]

49. I think some here confuse defending the Iraq war with defending

HC's explanation of why she voted for the IWR. I didn't agree with her vote but I fully accept her explanation of her vote at that time.

[Joe the Revelator]

69. If she had taken the time to read the resolution and shown some leadership ability

1000's of people might still be alive.


Yay Hillary's explanation! :eyes:

[bigtree]

134. Bush would have moved forward without the resolution

He didn't need it to deploy forces.

[Maat]

145. He didn't need it to deploy forces .... in order to defend the United States from imminent deadly ..

attack. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as giving the Commander-in-Chief SOME leeway; however, this was not an action taken in defense of the country, nor could it be sustained without Congressional approval. Anyone who voted for the IWR pissed on the Constitution and its separation of powers mandate, in my humble opinion.

Additionally, those who voted for the IWR knew that the invasion was illegal and unconstitutional. Our territory was not in danger of imminent deadly attack at the hands of a sovereign nation. This amounted to 'preemptive war,' and preemptive war is illegal.

Hillary knew that; she's a lawyer. She did not call * on it; she gave it her blessing. There is no mistaking what that resolution enabled * to do, particularly if one has a legal education.

There's no excuse.

[bvar22]

136. Hillary's "explanation":

I am NOT a warmonger with blood on my hands.

I am merely an IDIOT for trusting Bush.


Vote for Meeeeeee!

[AtomicKitten]

2. Yes, indeed.

:(

[Whisp]

3. same shit talk we heard from the Bush camp

is now here.

fucking disgusting.

[joshcryer]

5. Bush made it clear that he didn't need the IWR to invade.

So I don't know what the big deal is, he was going to invade anyway.

[Whisp]

10. if that's so, why go on record to support his insanity?

what's the big deal?

[joshcryer]

34. Because people think a vote for IWR is a huge deal.

The invasion of Iraq was inevetable.

[Whisp]

42. then why not let that insane fucker own it all himself?

damn weak argument that is.
shabby.
idiotic and stupid.
the voters and the believers.

[joshcryer]

47. Diplomatic reasons. The "Coalition of the Willing" wouldn't have been possible.

The "percieved" 'unity' in invading Iraq wouldn't have been possible. And many people who were up for election would've been toast.

The Iraq war got Bush reelected.

He would've won by even larger margins and still hold the house if we didn't "play it cool."

It's called politics and many people here seem to be out of touch with reality.

[Whisp]

75. reality to you and those 'diplomats' seems a bit different.

than on the ground Iraq and the many soldiers who gave up their lives and mental health for these games.

what is real-er?
seeing your kids blown to shreds in pink mists because chess games in D.C. should be more respected? making the wrong decison for thousands because it's the right one for your own personal ass?

:puke:

[joshcryer]

79. You throw out an appeal to emotion, I give you facts.

At least now we have the option to pull out of Iraq with a Democratic President and Congress. Had they not done it guess what? We'd be getting ANOTHER GOP President, and the Congress and Senate would be firmly in their grip.

[Whisp]

83. you don't think that the killing of thousands should involve emotion?

the Fact is,
you're an asshole.

[joshcryer]

85. I was against the Iraq war from the start. I protested along with the best of them.

But that doesn't mean I don't understand political reality.

If you really fucking wanted a GOP majority in every aspect of our government, then, wow.

[Whisp]

87. I'm sure being blown up is less painful when a Dem

does it rather than a Pug.

whatever.
sorry I called you an asshole.
I could have been more 'diplomatic'.

[joshcryer]

88. We will be out of Iraq by the end of 2009.

If the GOP has it's way we'd have been there perpetually.

[Whisp]

91. is the embassy and the many bases going to be rented out?

do the taxpayers get a refund on that?

I wish i could be as sure as you about 2009, which is 6 years too late.
those structures sound a bit permanent to me.

[joshcryer]

92. Both Obama and Clinton want troop withdrawal by 2009.

So I'm confidant on that one.

Unless McCain wins. Then it's a 100 year war.

[Whisp]

94. so they say.

I've just heard too many lies and half truths.
I don't believe it. too many serendipitus things could happen to interrupt their fine plans. :(

[joshcryer]

95. I think it'll happen. They're both strong candidates, imho.

I'm not for the Iraq war, I'm just saying I understand the vote, because I've been an observer of politics since I was a teenager.

Obama would probably fare better against McCain on this issue because he doesn't have to explain his vote. Hillary needs to tighten up her explaination if she's going to beat McCain on this issue.

But I do geniunely believe both of them when they say troop withdrawal by the end of 2009.

[Whisp]

96. hope so.

it's getting late and I must go.
thanks for the dialogue. ;)
sorry for getting all fisticuffy but times are strange and stressful, hope you understand.

maybe catch up another time?

[bvar22]

138. You didn't need to call him an asshole.

You could have just voted FOR a resolution calling him an asshole.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Supporting Bush while he walks into a quagmire isn't good long term politics

Yea we would've lost seats in 2002 but we would've been a hell of a lot stronger in 2004 if we'd listened to people like Jim Webb about how difficult it would be to actually stabilize Iraq.

Chafee's right, the Democrats were scared shitless that they were going to vote against a successful war. Of course if they'd listened to experts not tied to this administration they would've seen that the Bush Administration was headed straight for a quagmire.

[joshcryer]

93. You have short term memory I think.

We didn't gain any seats in 2004. We lost across the board. I think Lousiana was the only seat we gained (I remember this because I lived there then and it was one of the more notable elections).

Bush went to war in Iraq to win elections in 2004. Now, take a Senate that voted against the IWR across the board (note that most of the people who voted for it were incumbants or new in the senate). Not one Democrat voted for it. The incumbants would've lost, and the newbies (2 years or less) would've had a much harder time making deals.

Democrats would be toast. Epic proportions.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. No I don't have a short memory

And yes we lost across the board, partly because John Kerry's Iraq position was so complicated due to the fact that he voted for the IWR. Same goes for many congressional Democrats. The Republican attack theme was that Democrats were too indecisive to be trusted on national security. And when your explanation is, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have..." that plays right into their indecisive meme.

Kerry should've voted against the IWR on the grounds that after listening to the experts, he had determined that we would simply be walking into a quagmire. That speech would've made incredibly effective TV ad and John Kerry "right from the start" would've made an incredibly effective campaign slogan.

But instead Kerry had to spend much of the campaign explaining why he changed his position.

[joshcryer]

98. Kerry got reelected to the Senate, though.

Most of the incumbants got reelected. It "worked." Flip it around and see what happens. John Kerry would've still lost the election, many incumbants would've lost their seats, and the war would still be waging on, with a "divide" in American politics. Democrats would've been completely owned, dude. Anti-war was parroted from the rooftops by Dean, he didn't even win a state. 2004 was not the year for anti-war politicans.

[MadHound]

149. Ah, so you're saying that it's a good thing to sacrifice a few hundred thosand innocents

On the alter of politics. What a wonderful way to view life:eyes::puke:

Actually, that why a lot of people can't vote for Hillary, because they fear that is exactly why she voted for the IWR, and such cold hearted calculation disgusts them.

[IndieLeft]

11. And then we would have impeached his ass.

The president, regardless of what he may think, does NOT have the authority to initiate a war.

[joshcryer]

31. Unlikely.

He was going on Gulf War resolutions.

[IndieLeft]

50. The president cannot declare war

he doesn't have that power. And without the support of the congress, with as bad as it has gone... His ass would be sitting through impeachment hearings right now.... If he wasn't already sitting his ass in prison for war crimes.

[joshcryer]

54. We were already at war. Get it?

There was no delcaration of peace in any UN resolutions with respect to the Gulf War and Invasion of Kuwait.

I tried for weeks to get the "liberals" on this site to realize this 5 years ago but no one was listening. And then everyone whined and cried when politicians took the politically astute path and voted for it (John Kerry, most notibly. I was a Dean person back then but I never faulted Kerry for that vote).

[IndieLeft]

73. Don't give me that.

Seriously, that is the most half assed attempt to justify this I've seen.

[joshcryer]

81. I guess you weren't listening to the rhetoric back then.

It's why so many of us were against the war, we saw what Bush was saying, we saw him saying "I'm going anyway, goddamnit." Some of us were happy for the IWR because we thought it'd put more inspectors in, others were praying Saddamn would admit that he distoryed the WMDs (as was proven by Rhicther or however you spell his name), but he kept BSing about how he still had them.

But most of us KNEW that he was going to Iraq regardless, the other scenarios were just crap optimism.

[LVjinx]

53. NOT have the authority to initiate a war.

His argument was that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement from the FIRST Gulf War. He intended to invade anyway... Hillary & Co thought he sincerely wanted inspectors back... Shortly thereafter, he said "Inspections aren't the answer" after arguing for them for months. Even Edwards believed it. Blaming Hillary for Bush's warmongering is dishonest.

[joshcryer]

58. Indeed, they were fully prepared to go to war without Democratic approval.

And had the Democrats refused to approve it across the board the Senate and Congress would look starkly different than they do now (mostly GOP).

[Whisp]

80. Inspectors were in Iraq shortly before Bush declared.

they had to get out on the declaration.

wtf?
am I in lala land here.
whose Hans Blitzer? what was he doing where?

on the 11th hour Saddam gave all that was requested...

but Bush went ahead anyway.

and Hillary says tonight 'when Saddam refused to let in inspectors' ...

[joshcryer]

84. Saddam was back and forth, and at the end he declared in a famous speech that he had WMDs still.

This is a fact. Later on it comes out that he made that declaration because if he said he didn't have WMDs, he would've been toppled by his own people.

[Whisp]

86. I want a link to that famous speech. time and date please.

[joshcryer]

89. It's in this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

Not sure where, but I promise you it's there, if you watch the whole confessions thing.

edit: page 4

[1corona4u]

68. And, I don't think anyone is 'defending' it.

But, it's nice for the O supporters that O wasn't even in a position at that time, to have to make that difficult decision. But, yes, 100 times, yes, he was going in one way or the other. Too bad congress got caught in the middle.

[southern_dem]

6. very sad n/t

[krkaufman]

7. It wasn't a declaration of war. It was just a resolution outlining a plan ...

... for getting Iraq to comply with its previous commitments to disarm.

Oh, and it gave George W Bush the authorization to bomb the f**k out of Iraq, and invade at his discretion.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. The vote allowed Bush to claim a mandate on going into Iraq.

Give it to Hillary Clinton to not even read the entire resolution.

[krkaufman]

55. Precisely. By the fall of 2002, every person with decent judgement ...

... knew exactly what type of person George W Bush was, and that he would use the resolution to take the country to war.

What concerns me further, is that Hillary just recently demonstrated that she did not learn from her IWR error, in voting for the Kyl/Lieberman Iran resolution. Bush is exactly the same sociopath he was in 2002, and, absent the (blessedly timely and illuminating) recent Iran NIE, Bush would have used the Kyl/Lieberman amendment to piggyback an attack against Iran onto the Iraq "use of force" resolution.

Hillary's judgement is either flawed or corrupted by conflicting political concerns.

[ursi]

8. It's disgusting, shameful and a slap in the face of those who died or were wounded ...

and those stuck over there.

[Thrill]

9. The Hillary supporters will say and do anything

I can't believe how they all of sudden accept the IWR vote. Wow just wow

[Joe the Revelator]

"Say and do anything" is truer tonight then ever before.

I'm honestly shocked.

[IndieLeft]

15. Because it's not about "us" as a whole... It's just about winning.

It reminds me of a republican friend of mine after Bush stole the first election. I didn't even know he was a republican until then.

He stood up and shouted "Just give it to him... They had eight years. I don't give a shit if he won...."

This just reeks of that same stench.

[featherman]

13. Don't know whether to laugh or cry

Strange, strange stuff on this board tonight. Guess I'll just watch it all roll through. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed.

[DUyellow]

14. It is not even funny. knowing what she knew then, would she vote for it today? that is the question

[Proud2BAmurkin]

She has said knowning what she knows now about BUSH the answer is no

[Joe the Revelator]

19. If she had read the resolution maybe she would have known then what she knows now.

[DUyellow]

22. That means nothing, she wont say she learned a lesson.

[DUyellow]

146. waiting for your response

[Carolina]

16. It truly is amazing

Those who don't learn from history or try to spin it conveniently ...

I will never forget:

November 22, 1963
April 4, 1968
June 6, 1968
December 12, 2000
October 11, 2002

[angie_love]

17. ...I promised myself I could never vote for someone who authorized the war.

Hillary authorized it so I can't forgive that. Even at 20 yrs old I never understood why we couldn't wait the inspections out.

[calmblueocean]

18. Fuck, yes! I can't believe my eyes either. Next they'll be cheering Cheney.

"IWR doesn't matter" my fucking ass.

[Barack_America]

20. I find it shocking that Democrats can obviously...

...turn off their brains and blindly support their candidate to the same extent Republicans can.

[newmajority]

21. Fuck Bush, the DLC, AIPAC, and every other miserable piece of shit

who has ever attempted to justify this war. :grr:

[Bullet1987]

23. There's definently a hawkish/DLC wing of DU

that has exposed itself usually in staunch support of Hillary Clinton over the past few months.

[Individualist]

139. Absolutely,

and DLC loves war and the big bucks corporations get from it.

[harun]

143. I don't see it, but it is probably because I have all the DU DLC/Hawk/Hillbot crowd on ignore (n/t)

[Joe the Revelator]

24. The other thing she is doing is acting like their was no disent before the vote

I remember THOUSANDS of activists, democrats, american city councils,and foreign nations begging Bush and congress to use restraint and actually prove their charges.

[mondo joe]

25. Then where were you during the Kerry campaign?

[Joe the Revelator]

29. In DC protesting the war, where were you?

Plus I was a Clark fan.



"Kerry did it to" is not an argument that is going to work here.

[mondo joe]

30. There were PLENTY of people defending Kerry's vote. Were you just not around then?

?

[Joe the Revelator]

33. Check my sign up date Joe, I was here in 2004. Once again "Kerry did it too!" is not an excuse

We made the mistake once,I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and allow the same mistake to happen again.

[mondo joe]

38. I didn't excuse it. I'm answering your OP that you never thought you'd see DUers defending

the IWR. I'm telling you they did - during the Kerry campaign.

Reading is fundamental.

[movonne]

26. I think that some here are just like the freepers...if it is someone

they like they overlook all their faults and make excuses for them...

[sjdnb]

27. Maybe if you studied it a little - so few seem to know what it really said

Bottom line -- Bush ignored the requirements/intent of the legislation -- anyone surprised?

If so, check out his near 1000 signing statements - that have circumvented the Constitution AND/OR existing law.

But, maybe dissing a fellow Dem is better than fighting to impeach the worse/most criminal President of all time who TO THIS DAY continues to execute signing statements that usurp the Constitution and Democratic principles.

[bvar22]

141. "Bush ignored the requirements/intent of the legislation "

"Bottom line -- Bush ignored the requirements/intent of the legislation -- anyone surprised?"

YES!
If you believer her, Hillary was surprised.

[milkyway]

144. What requirements? There was only one legal requirement--within 48 hrs of invasion bush

had to report to Congress that he did so because diplomatic means would not be enough to defend the U.S. from Iraq.

You tell people to study it a little, but you obviously haven't done so. You don't quote any actual text and are probably just going by what you've heard from other people.

Show me the legal requiremements. Here it is:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<snip>

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.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon 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; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.


<snip>

[CarbonDate]

147. Dupe -- self delete

..

[Danger Mouse]

28. That tactic is disgusting.

I like Hillary a lot better about tonight's debate, but she LOST that portion of the debate, pure and simple. Trying to gloss over the IWR is a shameless diversion.

[The_Casual_Observer]

32. It's not a campaign issue, except for Nader.

Obama voted to fund the war the first chance he got. It's a stupid thing to keep bringing up in the context of this election.

[Joe the Revelator]

37. How is it not a campaign issue? McCain supported the war, Obama can say that he did not

That gives him a leg up from the outset.

[The_Casual_Observer]

41. He voted to fund the war as soon as he could.

Forget this line of bullshit, only you and the Greens care about it.

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Funding the troops that Hillary helped put into harms way?

Yeah, that excuse isn't going to fly either.

And most of the American public think the war in iraq was a mistake. Thousands of military families care about. You should care about it to if you would take off your partisan pants for one god damn minute.

[The_Casual_Observer]

51. It's like talking to a wall. Forget it. It's a non-issue.

[Joe the Revelator]

56. You WANT it to be a non-issue. It is going to be a huge issue and you're telling a lot about

yourself by implying that it isn't

[The_Casual_Observer]

59. It'll be an issue with the greens.

McCain is the enemy. How does IWR help the cause?

[Joe the Revelator]

67. McCain supported the war. You run a candidate against him that did not, and who do you think will...

appear to have better leadership qualities?

[The_Casual_Observer]

74. He voted to fund it the first chance he got. Iraq can't be used to anybody's

advantage except McCain who'll claim it's improving because of the surge. Case closed.

[ErnestoG]

40. I beg your pardon? It is the number TWO issue for voters.

[The_Casual_Observer]

43. The IWR? Get the fuck out.

[emilyg]

105. Never thought I would agree with you. I do.

[sjdnb]

35. And, I never thought I'd see the day when Dems became Bush apologists

Because HE was the one who ignored/circumvented/usurped/ignored/disregarded the intent/requirements of IWR 2002 as passed in the Senate/House.

[CarbonDate]

148. Saying it (over and over again) doesn't make it so.

There were no requirements. The resolution gave Bush carte blanche to do whatever he pleased with regards to Iraq.

Try again.

[LiberteToujours]

36. I think she wishes she could say she regrets it but for political reasons cannot

At this point, after so stubbornly defending her position for so long, it would only hurt her. Perhaps when she writes her memoirs.

[ErnestoG]

39. Wow, no shit.

And I'm new to this place. It's the first "Democratic" forum that is inching so close to approval of the IWR res.

Bizarre beyond belief. But, its probably just cultish loyalty to Hillary Clinton that would cloud so many minds.

[msongs]

44. then why is you avatar of a socipathic serial killer, murderer & common criminal any better? nt

[ErnestoG]

70. 'scuse me, Mr Rightwinger. Che was a hero,

And thanks for outing yourself. Now run back to Free Republic and tell them that a little guy from Utah whipped your ass in one post.

[sjdnb]

48. Read the freakin bill already -- it was Bush, not any Dem

who caused the invasion of Iraq. He skipped over the requirements/intent of the bill and undermined the sense of the Senate --- but, still no impeachment. That is the real sad part -- and both Hillary and Obama could advocate for the same.

[ErnestoG]

72. the pro war Dems ENABLED him, and don't think they didn't know it at the time.

To date, only one of those who ran in this election on the Dem side and voted for IWR copped to their error and mended their ways. That was John Edwards.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. What requirements?

What clause anywhere in the IWR has as a condition that the President exhaust diplomatic remedies at the UN Security Council? The only relevant clause is at Section 3, Authorization For Use Of United States Armed Forces. That section concerning the subject of authorization merely says the President can use the Armed Forces "as he deems necessary and appropriate". It was left up to his judgement and discretion. The IWR also requires the President to submit a report on his decision to use force, which George Bush did by a letter to Congress on March 13th. And the War Powers Act as recited in the IWR allows the President to use the U.S. military for a period of 60 days without a formal delcaration of war, with a 30 day extension on his request. I assume every Senator knew the law and what they were getting into in granting this blank check to a completely ruthless and untrustworthy administration. Read Feingold's speech on the Senate floor and how he didn't trust Bush. Read Hillary Clinton's own speech in which she admitted that the IWR didn't go far enough in requiring a diplomatic solution prior to war. She said in plain language that despite her reservation she would expect the President to "try hard". Well "try hard" language isn't even a condition expressed in the IWR. In fact, there are no conditions. This isn't a matter of supporting Bush's right to use force. He clearly did have it according to the IWR's own language. Bush's crime was not in using the blank check. Bush's crime was in lying to America about the non-existent threat and scaring some Senators with the propect of losing their office if Bush went to war and his stories about WMD might be true.

Here's the relevant text of the IWR. Where is there any condition?

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

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

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

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

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

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Show me any requirements in the bill that Bush be required to exhaust diplomatic remedies at the UN Security Council. Read the only relevant clause of the bill, Section 3 entitled


SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

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

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

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

[Dr Fate]

46. And they have to essentially compliment Bush to make that argument.

He was the "slick" used car salesman who handily "fooled" the DEMS. After all, he was so adept and politics that no one could have guessed that he was a corrupt liar hell bent on power.

Uh-huhhhh.

[TheWebHead]

52. there's no doubt this place recently became bizarro world

it almost seems like the hrc campaign has been name dropping du because this place is a lot different than it was in 2003. maybe it's time to rename this place dlcunderground

[Yossariant]

57. Welcome to Reality Day. Most VOTERS supported the war --even if they don't any longer.

[Joe the Revelator]

61. and 1000's of activists,democrats, US city councils, and foreign counties warned against it

Those who made the mistake have to live with that.

[Yossariant]

65. "Those who made the mistake" are who we call VOTERS.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. and unlike Hillary, most of them are now willing to admit it.

[Yossariant]

78. She has nothing to admit. SHE did not send one soldier to Iraq.

[DiamondJay]

60. we are not defending it in our hearts

we are figuring out what to say to republicans to either explain why they should vote for Hillary or why we are.

[Joe the Revelator]

63. Yeah much better idea then just suporting the democrat who DIDN'T endorse the war

Come on now.

[DiamondJay]

76. but we are right now planning in case of Hillary

I initially supported Gore BECAUSE of Iraq, and because he was not part of the presidential dynasty thing (tho he is part of a political family), and if he had run, he would be a White House shoo in. But I also liked him because he has experience and knows policy extremely well, just like Hillary. Policy matters to me, which is why I lean strongly but not fully to Clinton. I still like Obama's message and appeal to youth, but also worry about Barack Hussein Obama's electability.

[Little Star]

133. I will never believe that Obama, if he was in the US senate at

the time the vote was taken, would have voted any different than the 74 other Dem senators who voted just like Hillary. Nice to sit out in Illinois with out being forced to vote for real. If he were in the US senate at the time of the vote maybe, he would have taken one of those famous no votes or maybe the also famous present votes.

Lets face it, we will never know how he would have really voted. It does not make it true just because he said he would have voted against it. We will never know how he really would have voted, because he was never forced into the position to have to cast that vote!

He gets no credit for being against something with his mouth, when he wasn't faced with the choice of putting an actual vote on the record. 75 Dem senators made a horrible choice, some of which, Obama now accepts their endorsement.

You people need to get off your high horses. All those Dem senators who voted yes, will hold themselves responsible for the rest of their lives. We will never really know what Obama would have done if he was in their seat. It is time to stop eating our own.

[sjdnb]

62. No one is defending how Bush criminally implemented the IWR --

but, how is it that no Dems in the leadership are calling him on this - or his hundreds of other violations of the Constitution by means of signing statements, wiretapping, etc.

I haven't seen Obama, Clinton, or anyone else in the party standing up on the floor of the Senate demanding the restoration of the Constitution or demanding these criminals (and, their cronies) be held accountable for the deaths and waste they've profited by.

So much for the moral high-ground.

[Joe the Revelator]

66. You can keep pushing the Bush acted a lone meme, but Hillary helped give him the mandate and...

sell the country.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Yes I never thought I would encounter war mongers here

:puke:

[ErnestoG]

82. Cult behavior will make people do weird things.

[MagsDem]

99. Obama did in 2004 for Kerry

The IWR is not something to be happy about, but the issue I think is that Obama acts holier than thou on the issue. That's hypocritcal for two reasons:

1) Because he excused Kerry for it in 2004 - said they were lied to, and they were.

2) He didn't have to vote on it, because he hadn't been elected to any federal office and wouldn't be for over 2 yrs after the vote. Yet since he has been in office he has shown absolutely no cooperation with Dems that do want us out, and in fact has been an obstacle in some cases.

When does all this transformational leadership start, and what is preventing him from showing some of it now?

[ErnestoG]

100. You conveniently forget that Kerry APOLOGIZED for it

....and your candidate still has not.

Why can't this make it through your head?

[MagsDem]

102. Kerry didn't apologize for it when Obama was defending him

I don't know that Kerry ever apologized for it. Edwards did in 2005. Perhaps you are confused. But Kerry did not apologize for his vote during the 2004 campaign.

[ErnestoG]

107. Kerry did so in a more mealy mouthed way, Edwards blatantly

...so what's Hillary's excuse?

[MagsDem]

110. Seriously, how old are you?

Kerry essentially blew his whole campaign when he was asked if he would vote for the war again and he said yes. Were you like 12 then? Because it was pretty big news, you know? He hardly apologized for it. I don't see how in any shape or form what he said could have been called an apology of any sort.

[ErnestoG]

113. Age-ism now? Is that how you deal with your lack of argument?

I'm 46, grandma. How old are you, and does it matter?

Kerry is known for being less than clear in some of his speeches, and its obvious from his statements on the IWR that he regrets it, but unlike Edwards, cannot be brought to say...the....words.

Very much like Hillary. And if she is the nom, then like Kerry, she will be defeated.

[MagsDem]

115. No, just wondering how you could have missed such a huge

event in the 2004 campaign unless you were in high school or college and just paying attention to other things back then. Now let me refocus your attention -- the discussion was about Obama statements during the 2004 Kerry campaign. So what Kerry said after the 2004 is not relevant to the discussion we are having.

[ErnestoG]

118. There is much you missed. Starting with, I was involved in Dean's campaign in 2004

And you trying to play the time envelope trick with Obama's statements regarding Kerry doesn't get Hillary off the hook. See, that doesn't work with me, or other thinking voters.

[MagsDem]

121. Sorry, you're not making any sense

What is a "time envelope trick" pray tell?

[ErnestoG]

123. It means you're attempting to blow smoke, and its not working very well.

The core issue is that Obama doesn't have anything to apologize for regarding the IWR, but Hillary has plenty.

Think you can stay on track with this one, or will we do another round robin of who said what about whom, when?

[MagsDem]

126. The phrase "time envelope trick" means blowing smoke?

You got some stranges phrases, dude.

But regardless, the facts are Obama says he has ALWAYS been against the war, but he has been in the senate for over 2 yrs and yet he has not done a single thing to back up that rhetoric. Instead he has actually been an obstacle to a dem congress's efforts to end the war, and the blank check Bush has. If he truly is against the war, why has he not shown ANY leadership on the issue at all?

His words of 2002 are meaningless if, as is the case, he has shown no leadership on the issue. That he sang a different tune when he backed Kerry in 2004 is just icing on the cake to prove my point.

[ErnestoG]

127. Yes, its a form of diversion, which you're not doing too well

But noting your candidate, I cannot blame you for trying.

[MagsDem]

129. What am I "diverting" from?

I think Obama's story about his war vote is complete bullshit. And I have told you why. In 2006 he voted against the Kerry - Fiengold troop withdrawal bill. You simply cannot claim that his actions in the senate match his 2002 rhetoric.

[Sapphocrat]

101. Don't feel too foolish.

I never thought I'd see the day that certain factions would be defending a gigantic fuckover of queers, and calling it "reaching out."

Hey, we all make mistakes.

[MagsDem]

103. Oh, that's another reason I don't think he is so....

"transformational." Of course DU has never been particularly GLBT friendly anyway. Were you here when hoards here blamed the GLBT community for Kerry's massive failures as a candidate? That one really took the cake. I had to take a year leave of absence after that one.

[Sapphocrat]

104. Here since 2001...

Lurked for a year, then registered in 2002.

Oh, the things I could tell you! (Why isn't there an "Oy!" hand-slapping-the-forehead emoticon?)

We're blamed for everything. *sigh*

[NMMNG]

106. .....

We're blamed for everything. *sigh*

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just plain damned.

[Sapphocrat]

111. Of course we're damned, dear.

Damned by the fundy fanatics, damned by-- well, I don't want to get this post deleted, so I'll just say: Damned by the last people I would have expected, even a few months ago, to damn us.

If this "reaching-out" tripe is just that -- tripe -- and they're going to tell us to fuck off due to affectational orientation (or age, come to think of it), we may as well live down to their expectations, I say. What do you think?


On edit: Silly me, I misspelled "affectational" the first time.

[NMMNG]

112. Never have I felt less that the Dem party is my party

Damned by the fundy fanatics, damned by-- well, I don't want to get this post deleted, so I'll just say: Damned by the last people I would have expected, even a few months ago, to damn us.

Indeed. I'm sick to death of people who want my money, my support and my votes but give me nothing in return. ENDA? No dice. The Matthew Shepard Act? Can't cheese off the fundies. Marriage? Not on your life. If fight real hard you might get this Colored Only Drinking Fountain Civil Union thing instead.


If this "reaching-out" tripe is just that -- tripe -- and they're going to tell us to fuck off due to affectational orientation (or age, come to think of it), we may as well live down to their expectations, I say. What do you think?


That "reaching-out" thing is tripe. There's no "reaching-out" to racists. The racists are denounced loud and clear, and calls for them to be fired are made. No racists will be allowed in Obama's campaign. But there's room for homophobes, because they're "good, moral, decent people". Bullshit.

As to their expectations, screw them. I don't have to live up to or down to anybody's expectations but my own.

[MagsDem]

122. Great post...

... and right on the money.

[NMMNG]

125. Thank you

I must say this election has taught me well.

[ErnestoG]

108. Oh NOW it comes clear...you think Obama is a homophobe....

despite overwhelming lack of evidence for that.

[Sapphocrat]

109. Talk about late to the party -- and totally clueless.

No, Ernie. Obama is not a raging homophobe. Obama simply surrounds himself with raging homophobes. He lacks grown-up judgment. But I don't expect you to understand that... at least for a few years.

[ErnestoG]

114. Another age-ist. Wow, this must be epedemic with the ossified DLC Hillarites....

What a pity. I guess craniums, like arteries get hardened with age...

[MagsDem]

116. Sorry, you DO appear like the past is a complete mystery to you

Apparently I am not the only one to notice it. Have a nice evening.

[ErnestoG]

119. To you and your pal? Not bothersome to me.

[Sapphocrat]

117. Silly boy.

Neither a Hillarite, nor a DLCer... which you would know if you'd ever bothered reading any of my posts over the past six years.

But then, you're not real big on history, are you?

[ErnestoG]

120. Silly whatever you are....

Hows the name calling working for you? I detect someone who hasn't had much of an impact on their world around them....and it aint me.

[Sapphocrat]

124. What name-calling?

And I detect a very frustrated person in you -- and bored enough to rack up over 800 posts in less than five days. I'm sorry you don't have anything better to do with your time. I wish for you nothing but peace... and a more fulfilling hobby.

You're committing the ultimate sin now -- you're boring me. Nighty-night!

[ErnestoG]

128. You don't recognize "silly boy" as name calling? That fits....

considering you don't know that Obama is no homophobe either.

[VotesForWomen]

130. Obama would have voted for IWR if he was in the senate. FYI, hillary 'gave a speech' opposing the wa

opposing the war. it's quite common for politicians to vote one way and make a speech the other way; that way they've got both bases covered. i'm not defending it, but it's standard operating procedure, and you are naive indeed if you think obama's speech amounts to a hill of beans. since he's been in the senate he's voted the same as hillary. anyone who cares about IWR (and i'm not demeaning this concern at all) should write in kucinich.

[Joe the Revelator]

132. Spin me right round baby right round

[pampango]

131. It kind of makes me think of that game "Twister". n/t

[bigtree]

135. It's only because folks are misrepresenting the resolution

. . . disregarding the fact that Bush had stated his intent to press forward without it, likely without any inspectors at all. Disregarding the fact that Bush ignored the provisions of the resolution which mandated restraint and the use of force as a last option, after exhausting all peaceful means.

And, misrepresenting the reasons (stated before their vote) some Democrats voted for the resolution. The shorthand attacks are self-serving and incomplete.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

137. Trolls.

Fuck 'em.

[Individualist]

140. It's the DLC faction

As evidenced by their posts, they love war and despise progressives.

[milkyway]

142. And the people defending it either misrepresent the text, or refer to an irrelevant speech.

Unfuckingbelievable. The war-making wing of the Democratic Party.