With McCain positioning him as "soft" on security, Nader positioning him as supporting

[Ravy]

the Iraq war, and the MSM looking for a fight to report on...

Will Obama finally have to answer the question, "Given that he had thrown weapons inspectors out, was in violation of many UN sanctions, and the intelligence community said it was possible that he had WMD and the ability to use them against US interests, what *would* you have done with Iraq in 2002?"

Presidential visit?

I would like to know.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Anyone who voted for the IWR was a fucking idiot, a coward, or both. That includes Edwards,

by the way. At least he admitted it was wrong.

[Ravy]

2. Yeah, but if he answers that way, won't the MSM jump him?

[John Q. Citizen]

3. If we continue to approach every stance from a position of fear, we will keep losing.

If we fear the MSM, then they control us.

[Ravy]

6. Well, Nader supporters are going to say the same thing you said

about Clinton, but they will be saying it about Obama and his funding of the war and statements he made in support of Kerry.

It will be interesting to see how you play it then.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. We are going to kick John McCain's ass. I hope the first thing Obama does

in office is to push for a major reform/overhaul of the horrendous telecommunications bills Clinton pushed through.

Ameican democracy is dependent on a free and independent press. We now have 5 major corporations who control over 85 percent of the mass media.

It's killing us.

[AndyTiedye]

33. We Fear the MSM BECAUSE Too Many People STILL BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY ARE TOLD ON TV

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

[tularetom]

4. You're thinking like it's still 2002

nobody gives a shit what the MSM does, particularly those who would be inclined to vote Dem this year.

[Ravy]

5. I want to know what Obama would have done in 2002.

History has a way of repeating itself.

And maybe, nobody *here* gives a shit what the MSM does, but ask Edwards and Kucinich supporter, and Clinton supporters, now, if MSM can make a difference in a campaign.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Voted against the war, along with

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR), Chaffee (R-RI), Jeffords (I-VT)

[Ravy]

14. So he would have taken the chance that Saddam had WMD,

and continued the sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, primarily children.

Why doesn't he just say that?

[Occam Bandage]

16. As he said at the time,

"I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

You don't go to war because "there's a chance he might have WMD." That's dumb. And he never said he would continue the sanctions, so I don't know where you get that.

[Ravy]

20. I agree that you don't go to war,

but I also believe that you check it out with weapons inspectors, and if WMDs are found and Saddam does not comply with having them destroyed, military action is warranted.

No, he has not said he would continue the sanctions. But they were there, and he essentially said he was for leaving things as they were at the time, so I suppose it would include those.

The Cuba of the middle east.

[Occam Bandage]

21. I agree with the weapons inspectors bit,

but suggesting that a war resolution is required is duplicitous. Inspectors have certainly been sent without war resolutions attached.

And if he did have WMD: seriously, so what? Supposing he did. Supposing he refused to destroy them. Why, exactly would military action be warranted? North Korea has WMD; shall we bomb them tomorrow? Were Iran to announce it had some chemical shells, should we then go to war with them as well?

[Ravy]

24. You are right. Inspectors had been sent before.

And Saddam had kicked them out. And there were threats so he let them back in. Then he didn't let them have access to certain sites. So the UN pulled them back out. The US bombed those sites.

This time, with the direct threat of force, Saddam destroyed some missles that were out-of-spec with his agreements, allowed surveilance overflights of his country, was activly seeking exile. See the difference?

It was criminal to invade when things were moving rapidly and peacefully in the direction of a resolution to the Iraq situation.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. The vast majority of Dems in Congress voted no on IWR. The Dem yes votes voted with the Repos.

All Obama has to say is 'I would have voted with the majority of my party on this.'

[Occam Bandage]

7. Thrown weapons inspectors out? Bush ordered the inspectors out, not Saddam.

[Ravy]

10. 1997, Returned in 1998 but were not given access so the UN pulled em.

They wouldn't have been in Iraq for Bush to pull them out if it hadn't been for the IWR.

[Occam Bandage]

17. The UN push for inspections certainly could have been accomplished without a war resolution.

[Ravy]

22. I don't think so.

Especially with the Oil-for-Food benefits some were getting.

I think it took the IWR, which added an element of enforcement to the sanctions, to move the issue. I don't think that the *use* of the enforcement was warranted. I think it was criminal, in fact.

However, if things happened like in 1998, with Saddam kicking the weapons inspectors out a second time, or significantly impeding their work, that enforcement was justified. The carrot was the normalizing of relations and ending the sanctions, the stick was an invasion. Bush did not let it play out.

[Occam Bandage]

25. In light of previous inspections, do you seriously believe that the only option

Bush had to get inspectors in Iraq again was a war resolution?

[Ravy]

28. I don't know. I do know that the majority of the Democratic

Senators, many of whom I greatly respect thought it was the best option at the time.

Nothing else really seemed to be working, but this one *did*, up until the time that Bush made sure it didn't.

[w13rd0]

9. Maybe let the weapons inspectors do the f'n job they were sent in for...

...rather than being in such a rush for war that Bush pulled them out before they could prove away his declared reason for invasion.

[Ravy]

11. Exactly.

But they wouldn't have been there except for the IWR, which Obama opposed.

How would you get the weapons inspectors in Iraq after Saddam had closed off access and kicked them out if you were not to threaten force?

[w13rd0]

13. What do you mean they wouldn't have been there except for the IWR?

You have a special crystal ball?

[Ravy]

18. No. But there was no movement to put them in there.

The UN had taken them out in 1998. Saddam was not willing to let them in.

Viola, the IWR appears with the threat of US troops enforcing the inspections and other resolutions, a unanimous UN vote, and they are let in. I am too old to believe in pure coincidences.

One simply has to look at the UN Security council votes. Unanimous right after the IWR, to a great possibility of not even getting a majority shortly before the invasion to know that the Bush administration was going back on its word to the Senate and the world community *between* the IWR vote and the invasion.

[w13rd0]

12. Oh, and Nader?

Come the fuck on. You don't find it at all curious that Nader decides to make another run now? The man is the very definition of a stalking horse, a trojan, a manchurian candidate. He's funded by the right wing to fuck things up. Oh, and I'll say this much. Nader has ALWAYS appealed to cynicism, which is why, in the past, he had a stronger following among youth (you do realize that's why the GOP is sending him out right, because they think it'll chip into Obama's strength with young voters). Fuck cynicism.

[Ravy]

15. I don't find it curious at all, because I agree with you.

Will the staunchly anti-war crowd stick with someone who funded the war? One issue voters make me queasy.

Will the young voters from the Ron Paul camp move into Nader's in such a number that the Obama youth see a progressive, staunchly anti-war alternative?

[tekisui]

26. Nader may be anti-war, but he isn't viable.

Cutting the funding was never a reality anyway. I don't think people are going to fall for Nader this time around. At least I hope not.

[Ravy]

29. Purists are not known for putting viability above their principles.

I was never on the DK bandwagon, but I greatly admire him and his supporters.

[tekisui]

31. True. I was a DK supporter. But, only in the Primary.

The GE requires a re-calibration. I don't know anyone who will get behind this Nader run.

[Ravy]

32. I can see the youth component of the Ron Paul vote going to Nader,

and pulling some youth Obama with it.

Many of these new voters don't have a strong party affiliation.

If Hillary wins, I think that they will be gone for sure, because she has been villified so by the Obama camp. They haven't been turning out in the past, so it is not likely they will be missed by Hillary's supporters though.

[Exilednight]

27. Nader can position himself any way he wants, all Obama has to say is ....

"I wasn't there for the vote, and if I remember correctly, neither were you, but McCain was."

[Ravy]

30. Obama was there for the funding. And he made statements

in support of Kerry in 2004.

The Nader people will have their ammunition. If he is our nominee, I hope he is ready.