Would Edwards still appologize for his IWR vote, if we had done well in Iraq?

[still_one]

[WI_DEM]

1. or any of the others who are now backtracking on that vote?

[still_one]

3. True, but those that voted against the IWR, such as Byrd and Feingold

I have no doubt would stand by their vote even if we had "won", whatever that means, the war

[flamin lib]

2. Victors write the history. nt

[still_one]

6. How many senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

2, Ernest Greening (Alaska) and Wayne Morse (Ore.)

How many House members voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

0

[aquart]

4. Thanks for reminding me of that ultimate gutlessness.

Did he also vote for the Patriot Act?

[still_one]

8. Yes he did. Feingold voted no, Byrd voted yes

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[LWolf]

24. He helped write it. Then he voted for it. n/t

[Hoosier Dem]

31. 1 Senator voted "No" on the Patriot Act...

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

[still_one]

48. pretty pathetic huh? and he won't run

[boot@9]

51. Feingold's response

when asked why he voted against the Patriot Act..."I read it."

[Zensea]

5. Hypotheticals are useless and just a matter of opinion

This is not a defense of Edwards, just a comment on the general premise of the question.

[still_one]

10. Why? Don't you think it would be an appropriate question to ask Edwards?

[Lex]

16. You could also ask hypothetically: If you knew for a fact Bush was lying

about the threat that Saddam posed to the US, would you have still voted for IWR?

There are endless possiblities for hyptheticals it seems to me.

[still_one]

20. Sorry, the IWR violated the War Powers Act, and the Constitution, not a hypothetical

As far as bush lying, that will come forth in the investigation in the next two years, but that wasn't even the point of the IWR. The IWR gave the president powers that he should not have had, and those who voted for it violated the intent of the Contitution.

[Lex]

23. How's about reading the Iraq War Resolution?

And then tell us how it violated the Constitution more specifically?

Text from the IWR to back up your claims would be swell, instead of us just taking your word on it.

[still_one]

30. Power was given to bush to attack Iraq if he thought it a threat

If you believe the President should have that power, and NOT Congress, then you and I will agree to disagree

[Trajan]

32. I think you misinterpret how the IWR was implemented ...

The IWR was a vote by congress authorizing war, by giving the executive 'pre' approval, and was a conditional declaration of war by congress ... They fulfilled the constitional requirement, albiet with qualifications, that congress declare war, per Article I - Section 8 of the Constitution ....

The IWR was a de facto declaration of war .... It wasnt a violation of the Constitution in and of itself ..... I despise this 'war', and I dislike that my party members voted for it, but I will not condemn them in perpetuity for acting in good faith .... They were LIED TO, and their biggest fault was believing in the lies ....

As much as I dislike that fact, they did NOT create the lies, but they did act on them ... I curse their carelessness in acting on the lies being fed to the whole congress by the same defective executive organs that dissimenated that SAME pack of lies to the media and to the public at large ....

They SHOULD have been more discerning and they SHOULD have scrutinized that information being fed to them .... but they did NOT violate the Constitution by voting for an act of congress allowing the executive branch to bring war to Iraq, based on conditions embedded in the text of the act ....

I will not, forever, condemn Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, et al, for doing what they thought IN GOOD FAITH was a proper action of that moment, given the information that was fed to them behind closed doors in an effort by the executive to push a DEFECTIVE justification for war with Iraq ...

I will castigate them .... but I will not NOT vote for them based on whether or not they voted yes for the IWR .....

They were careless ... but they did so in good faith, and I accept their apologies ....

[still_one]

34. I disagree, it directly violated the war powers act

Congress and the president must share war powers together.
The president must consult congress before and during the times when troops are sent into combat.
Congress must either declare war within 60 days of the troops' entry into combat, or the president must bring the troops home before the 60 days expires.
If the president requests, congress may allow the president to keep the troops in combat for another additional 30 days beyond the regular 60 day limit, if absolutely necessary.

[TayTay]

Ahm, what?

If it had gone 'well' and there were little to no deaths, then what would he be apologizing for? I don't understand your question, it doesn't make any sense.

[still_one]

11. He would be appologizing for voting for something that violated the war powers act

and for violating the intent of the Constitution

you think that doesn't make sense?

[chefgirl]

7. And so it begins, I suppose

Since the original impetus for going to war was 'supposedly' WMD, then, by some definition, if we had found WMD, we would have been doing well, in which case, the vote wouldn't ultimately have been a mistake. Therefore, no, he wouldn't have HAD to apologize.

Lets not forget here that BUSH started this bullshit by lying to everyone, including congress. All their votes were based on that lie.
Why is Edwards the bad guy all of a sudden?

Christ almighty, some people are never F*N satisfied.

-chef-

[still_one]

13. NO, the IWR violated the war powers act, and the constitution

It had nothing to do with WMDS

that is a poor excuse

[chefgirl]

15. Alright

OK, I'll bite, ONCE.

Wanna tell me how it violated the War Powers Act? Perhaps I'm being dense here, so I'm asking in all sincerity.

Additionally, why all the ire toward Edwards? Who's your ideal candidate?

-chef-

[still_one]

33. My ideal candidate would be Feingold, but he is not running

I also have ire toward Hillary, and anyone who voted for this

I would have no problem with Gore, Obamma, Kucinich, and others who were against it from the start including Clark, Dean, etc.


The war powers act came as a result of the Viet Nam war. It stated that the president must consult congress before and during the times when troops are sent into combat, and that Congress must either declare was within 60 days of the troops' entry into combat, or the president MUST BRING THE TROOPS HOME before the 60 days expires. Congress may allow the president to keep the troops in combat for another additional 30 days beyond the 60 day limit if the president requests it, and if absolutely necessary

The IWR completely invalidated the war powers act

[chefgirl]

45. Thanks for the answer, but...

First of all, I didn't ask you WHAT the War Powers Act was, I'm not quite that dense.

What I asked was, 'how did the IWR vote violate the WPA?'.

Seems to me that what was on the table during that vote was whether or not Congress would trust the President with the power to declare war, in this one instance.

What Congress did, in effect, was to make the President their proxy, for the purpose of one decision. I fail to see how that would violate the War Powers Act or the Constitution.

They voted on it, decided to trust him, and HE was the one who violated the spirit of that act.

-chef-

[still_one]

49. Congress did not have the right to allow the President to declare war

we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this, but I respect you position

[RogueTrooper]

9. Of course he would

why do you think America would have done well in Iraq. That was never going to happen.

[still_one]

12. I don't, I just don't believe these folks who voted for the IWR, and now regret it

are sincere. It was obvious that it violated the war powers act, but that did NOT seem to bother them at the time

[Lex]

14. Would a frog bump his rear-end when he hopped if he had wings

and could fly?

Another useful hypothetical to ponder.

[still_one]

17. How is this for some Hypotehticals: Is Edwards against the War Powers Act?

or does Edwards believe that only the president has the power to declare war?

[Lex]

19. Frankly, that doesn't seem like a hypothetical.

Those are just 2 questions.

Perhaps you should submit them to him, perhaps through his website?

[still_one]

22. I can't get on, I tried, maybe later

Incidently, that was my point the IWR wasn't a hypothetical, it was a violation of law that was voted on by people who should have known better

[Inspired]

25. Maybe you should try to ask him in person.

He would be more than happy to answer your questions. I think that is your best option instead of posing the question here on the DU. Go ahead, ask him face to face.

No one here speaks for him. You have NO idea what is in his heart.

[still_one]

36. DU is an area to stiumulate discussion. Incidently no one knows what is in anyone's heart

including you

[Beaverhausen]

18. Do you even know what the IWR said?

They voted to give Bush the OK to attack Iraq AS A LAST RESORT IF HE DIDN'T DISARM.

Bush is the one who disregarded what the IWR said. I hardly think you can blame the Iraq mess on John Edwards.

[Lex]

21. No, you see, Edwards wanted the Iraq War *more* than Bush.

According to a big segment of DU'ers anyway.

:eyes:

[Inspired]

28. Yeah, I read that too a few times.

What a load of bullshit. No wonder we can't win a presidential election. By the time we are through with our own candidates, it is surprising ANYONE would want to vote for them.

[still_one]

38. Why not present a candidate that was against the IWR? Something wrong with that?

[Beaverhausen]

47. you didn't answer my question

obviously you don't even know what the IWR said.

have a nice day...

[still_one]

27. That was a violation of the War Powers Act in itself

In addition, there have been interpretations by judicial experts, that it extends the power of the President beyond Iraq

Congress did NOT do their obligation to protect the Constitution

[still_one]

50. Congress had no right to give the president that power /nt

[TahitiNut]

26. Postulating the IMPOSSIBLE as a hypothetical is fruitless, imho.

The present conditions in Iraq were an inescapable consequence of the invasion and occupation. People of ALL political ideologies have taken this position at one time or another over the last 16 years, depending on the political expediency of publicly stating their opinion.

It's not rocket science or brain surgery. It's obvious.

[still_one]

29. The IWR, and its violation of the War Powers Act was not a hypothetical

and those who voted against it, saw the obvious

[TahitiNut]

35. I agree. The hypothetical was "if we'd done well in Iraq."

That's the impossibility. That's also why I tend to OPPOSE any person who supported the invasion and who voted 'yea' for the IWR. I said then and say now that Kerry/Edwards lost the 2004 election when they voted 'yea' on the IWR. While others can parse and mince that election in many ways, the Swift-boating and 'flip-flop' claims gained purchase in the minds of the electorate in no small part due to their IWR votes.

I reserve my whole-hearted support for those who voted 'Nay.' I've been a steadfast opponent of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan since the very start. I was a vocal opponent of the "Gulf War" as well ... and the "wrong-footing" of Saddam by April Glaspie. The predations of global corporatism have been plain and obvious from the time Saddam was placed into power in Iraq. He's a monster, but he's THEIR MONSTER! He'd never be there if it weren't for the same interests who are spending innocent lives again - first in putting him into power and, second and third, in attempting to 'discipline' him and then remove him from power ... only to put another puppet regime in place.

[still_one]

39. I hear you. We learned nothing from Viet Nam, and so it goes

[comsymp]

41. Damn, ya beat me to it - it was a foregone conclusion

that things could not go well for us in Iraq. Hell, that's why Poppy said he didn't chase Saddam back to Baghdad in '91.

[quinnox]

37. no bias in that poll question

:eyes:

[still_one]

42. If there is bias, then it is against anyone, not just Edwards who voted for the IWR

[Trajan]

40. Edwards is a wonderful man who CARES about all citizens ....

Your post is fraught with your own seething anger about Iraq, and you seem to be lashing out at Edwards in frustration .... While I understand and share your anger at what has happened in Iraq, I greatly doubt Edwards would be SUCH a brutal war-mongering animal as to trumpet 'success' in Iraq, given the loss of innocent life and carelss disregard for humanity that war engenders .... Iam sure Edwards is absolutely HEARTBROKEN at what has transpired, and feels more than a fair share of guilt for the role he played ....

Germany 'done well' in Poland, Austria, Belgium and France at the start of WWII .... but that doesnt change the 'wrongness' of the act of invasion by Germany over internationally recognized borders without provocation ...

What does 'done well' mean ? .... It is easy to equivocate this term ...

Edwards is a very decent and caring man .... I accept whatever apology he has to offer, and will work HARD for him if he is nominated by the Democratic Party to carry the banner in 2008 ...

[Dr Fate]

44. I accept his apology too- he admitted his mistake- I respect that. n/t

n/t

[still_one]

46. Not just Edwards, but anyone who allowed voted for this carnage to happen

of course I respect your views and position.

[Dr Fate]

43. There would be no need to- if no screw up, the public would not be against it.

A "success" in Iraq by most people's measure would have been to find & secure the WMDs- that was the #1 reason voters supported the war- to remove the threat of WMDs.

I say we give Edwards a break on this one- he has come clean- I like a man who can come clean and admit he screwed up. I like a woman who can do it too- Hillary? Are ya listening?

[still_one]

52. Congress should have never given this power to the president, that is where I am coming from

not if WMDs were there or not

My question, hypothetical or not is sure to come up in 2008, whether among fellow Democrats running such as Kucinich, or republicans, who will ask the obvious, "if you were against us going into Iraq, how come you voted for the IWR?"

[Dr Fate]

53. I dont disagree with that. You do have a good point.

However, the average American also once supported the war but now does not- and 2008, as evidenced by 2006, will not be like 2004 as far as spin on on war votes & positions goes.

I think the fact that he has apologized and admitted he was dead wrong will go long way in diffusing any "flip-flopper" rehash.

I like Kerry, Clark & Gore- but I look forward to seeing Edwards join the debate as well- I think he is an okay guy.

[still_one]

54. I am trying to understand his position, why he voted for the IWR

and if he was for going into Iraq. I have called his office, and submitted my concerns, and will also email him

I am not sure what I expect, but I know I want to understand what the appology is for. Is it because the IWR violates the responsibility of Congress, I can buy that.

However, if it is that I was misguided by the bush administration, or that I gave the bush administration the benefit of the doubt, I can't accept that