Candidates and use of force

[blm]

What candidates were straight up prowar?

What candidates were straight up antiwar?

What candidates supported a resolution for use of force if determined by the president?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. It's very simple. Dean and Bush are at opposite ends of the spectrum

and Kerry is firmly in the very reasonable middle. I think a clear majority of Americans would side with John Kerry.

[Padraig18]

2. What about the majority of Democrats, though?

That's 'where we're at', in the process.

[JNelson6563]

4. Seems to me the base was starving

for more conviction than hand-wringing and safe positions. Hence the popular "insurgency".

Julie

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. A clear majority of Americans

some 70%, thought that there were WMD in Iraq. A clear majority of Americans also think "Everybody Loves Raymond" is the best show on TV. So what?

Every day this war is exposed a little bit more, as a Big Lie. Unfortunately many Americans still choose to get their news from outlets like Faux, and they may never come around. They will vote for Bush.

If the "very reasonable middle" were so attractive, Kerry would be doing a lot better in the polls and in fundraising.

[HFishbine]

20. Right on!

Are we looking for leadership or a product launch?

[OrAnarch]

5. Hardley...

Someone who is anti-war is at the other side of the spectrum from Bush, while Dean was anti-Iraq war, or at least by the means at which Bush waged it. Dean weighed the facts, etc, and decided against this particular actions, a position much of middle america could relate to.


This is an extremely complicated question...which could probably only be solved by reading in depth at each candidate's site. (careful with some explanations as you may get nausea and confused)


IMO, the only anti-war candidate in general is Kucinich. Dean is not against war, but only wants such as a last resort through a multilateral means if and only if it is neccessary. Sharpton and CMB Im not sure about really, wether they are totally against the idea, or only in the context of the Iraq war. There is a remarkable difference IMO. Some enter into a situation with an automatic bias against such, and some enter with an open mind willing to determine if such is neccessary, before ruling that such is not (IMHO, war, as weve seen it in the past, is rarely ever neccessary). Then there are those who enter into the situation allready conviced war is the only option (to profit from--Bush, et al).


Clark is an enigma and it depends on the staffer and the day in regards to the Iraq war, but in general, empiracal evidence would suggest he is quite open to solvign disputes through force as well as diplomacy.


Lieberman is chill about war as long as he can make a buck off it.


Kerry, Edwards, Gephart all also voted for the IWR. Depending upon how many insurgents they killed in a particular day or how many Bathists they cature, they alter their ongoing support.

[Padraig18]

6. I know you don't support Gov. Dean, but thank you!

At least someone recognizes that HD is not anti-war, but anti-THIS-war! :hi:

[blm]

7. Dean supported a resolution for use of force

as determined by the president. So, why is his original position at the time of the IWR looked upon as antiwar by so many? And why are those who also supported a use of force resolution labeled prowar?

I'm curious as to who benefits from black and white portrayals when the issue itself is not a black and white issue and was never a black and white issue for most people.

I don't see any intellectual honesty in those portrayals, just cynical oppprtunism. Like the way Rush reduces issues into black and white to sway stupid people.

[Padraig18]

8. Too bad most Democrats see it differently.

Keep up that 'nuancing', though, since it's working so well for your candidate. :eyes:

[blm]

11. Too bad some Democrats don't mind being lied to by

the media and those complicit in pushing the lie for their own venal benefit.

Did you ever try answering the question without attacking me instead? CAN you answer the question? Did Dean support a resolution allowing Bush to determine use of force or didn't he? Did Kerry support a resolution allowing Bush to determine use of force or didn't he?

Was Edwards as prowar as Lieberman? Was Dean antiIraqwar as Kucinich?

Try answering questions straight up, no lies, no obfuscation.

[Padraig18]

13. Keep telling yourself that.

How's it working for your candidate?

[blm]

18. Try just being honest. No politics, just truth.

Try it.

[Padraig18]

25. your *perception* of 'truth'

You don't have a lock on 'the truth', blm. Try opening your mind that there WAS a difference, and 23 Democratic senators agreed at the time of the vote--- DEMOCRATIC senators. Repeat, as needed, until reality sets in...

[blm]

33. Dean suppprted a resolution for use of force.

You support Dean for the exact point you attack others, and rationalize it every which way you can by pointing to process arguments. Not much intellectual honesty there, but, LOTS of selective sanctimony.

[Scott Lee]

38. Repeating it doesn't make it true, blm

[blm]

43. Then just answer - Did Dean support a resolution

that allowed Bush to make the final determination for use of force?

[Padraig18]

39. *A* resolution.

Not the one that Sen. Kerry voted in favor of, sadly for Sen. Kerry.

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" --

--- Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 158 years ago

[Donna Zen]

54. Let the record show...

Gov. Dean did support some form of the resolution...and what is more, said that a unilateral invasion, without qualifiers, was okay if junior gave the inspectors 30-60 more days.

While this has differences with the Kerry position, those differences do not negate ending up at the same place: the mess we are in today.

There is a hint of demogogery in the air.

Each person had to make their own judgement regarding IRW based on competing factors, including the future of any president's ability to receive a resolution from congress to go to the UN.

Points conveniently forgotten and brushed aside, but part of the record:

• Spring--Bush originally says that the old UN agreements is all he needs, because Saddam in violation.

• Summer--troop build up and increase in bombing...Dems, including the forgetfull on this board, call for bush to get a new resolution.

• September--bush launches a new and more horrible resolution. The fight begins and coincides with the opening rounds of the election season. Dems. painted as obstructionist and weak.

• October--amendments to the resolution are mostly a failure, but there are changes to crazy-monkey's original. With the drum beat of "Saddam's gonna kill all your children in their beds" the country points fingers at the Democratic party who are "out of touch."

• IRW passes as does the 2002 election

• Saddam agrees to open up for inspections and provide all information.

• December--information dissed by the administration

• Inspections working--Blix says nothing found--Powell ruins any reputation he had left. (American media silent on Powell's lying ways)

• Inspections still working--Rummy announces that the inspectors not finding anything is a sure sign that Saddam is lying.

• Inspections still working--

Note: at this point bush could call the IRW a success, form a coalition of allies to pressure Iraq with NGO's and a virtual army of inspectors. Begin to undermine Saddam, by using on the ground teams to win hearts and minds. Slow work, but it definately can be done. (See Carnegie report)

• BUT WAIT! Instead, Blair tells bush he needs a second resolution because British lawyers advise the first IRW does not cover a war. (I'm not sure if the changes that congress made screwed this up or just the entire concept of the orginal resolution didn't work. As usual, the WH lawyers say any fucking thing they are told.)

• No second resolution can be obtained

• Junior gets his war on.

Blaming Democrats for this would seem questionable logic, except I believe in the case of Lieberman who buys into "peace in the ME goes through Baghdad." Personally, I don't believe any of the other eight would have even in their wildest nightmares intiated this total fiasco. You do understand that this is bush's war and bush's fault. The only people with more blood on their hands are the media who assured that this war would happened.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Kerry and Bill Clinton are on the exact same page

and last I checked Bill Clinton was our last (most) popularly elected president. And this is re: IWR, which is in fact very simple and straightforward: Kerry supported it, Clinton said he would have voted for it, and the doctor said he wouldn't have.

[OrAnarch]

12. And believe me...

...I am very dissapointed with the Clintons for their views and voice regarding this entire conflict. Im utterly amazed at such, and I wonder if it is to pander to the opinion polls or if they were really that embedded with the Washington establishment. I am simply amazed by their lack of leadership regarding the entire conflict, but for those with cynicism, many suggest such a move is motivated by just more politics in the future and repositioning of the party. I personally do not know.

[blm]

10. Dean and Bush were never aat opposite ends. That's the media lie.

Kerry supported a resolution for use of force that allowed Bush to make that decision. So did Dean back at the time of the IWR vote. Why does the media portray it differently and who does it benefit? It must benefit somebody greatly or else the media would portray it more honestly.

There seems to be too many misinformed people who also see it as antiwar or prowar and nothing in the middle, even though most of the country and most of the lawmakers are in that middle ground.

[Padraig18]

15. Democrats don't agree, unfortunately.

This is why Sen. Kerry's campaign is imploding.

[blm]

16. Democrats accept media lies, just like dittomonkeys do.

They aren't immune to demagogues who speak in black and white portrayals of issues that are too important to be reduced to such terms.

Of course, venal, small people don't mind profitting from the lies used if there is political footing to be gained.

Terribly sad for democracy. But then, look how many people were fooled into believing IranContra and its illegal wars were legitimate ventures. Too many Democrats disagreed on that. too.

[Padraig18]

17. So Democrats are 'ditto monkeys'?

Opportunistic candidates running for President don't mind casting their Senate vote with an eye toward the GE, either.

[blm]

22. Ones who accept layered issues in black and white terms

are doing exactly what dittomonkeys do when they accept demagogue generated reduction of terms. Some Democrats can be as accepting of that as most Republicans.

Why would you pretend I said that Democrats are dittomonkeys? Does that benefit you in some way if you twist another's words? Do you WISH that I said Democrats are dittomonkeys so you can force a confrontation even if you know what you said is not true?

[Padraig18]

26. Then 23 Democratic senators are 'dittoheads', by your reasoning.

They saw it differently, too. Sorry, doesn't wash, but keep repeating it, if it makes you feel better as you watch your candidate's campaign implode...:shrug:

[blm]

28. You can't answer even ONE simple question, can you?

At the time of the vote, who of the CANDIDATES supported a resolution that allowed Bush to determine the need for use of force?

[Padraig18]

29. If you'd ask an answerable question, I would.

You make it sound as though there was only ONE choice, when in fact there were TWO: IWR, as is, or Biden-Lugar. You would like us to forget that fact, of course.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. Then Democrats are in the minority

and are destined to lose the election anyway.

[batman]

14. which war are you discussing

?

[blm]

24. Iraq. Who was antiwar? Who was prowar?

Who supported a resolution that allowed Bush to determine need for use of force?

[IndianaGreen]

21. A better question: which candidates could vote in Congress?

Dennis Kucinich voted against IWR.

Who was more courageous? Kucinich for voting against the war, or Kerry for going with the flow?

Dennis Kucinich wants an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. Kerry wants a "Vietnamization" of Iraq, which as we all know, worked so well in adding names to the Vietnam War Memorial.

What candidates supported a resolution for use of force if determined by the president?

Which candidates believed Bush? Why should we reward them for their stupidity?

[blm]

23. You didn't answer the question.

Why are so many people having trouble answering three simple questions?

[IndianaGreen]

27. Because the only thing that counted were the votes in Congress

just as the only thing that counts in the primaries is the number of delegates.

To answer your question more explicitly, I am not taking the bait!

[blm]

30. In other words, you KNOW that Dean supported a resolution that allowed

Bush to make the final determination for use of force. Dean was NOT an antiwar candidate, and not even an antiIraqwar as some claim here buoyed by the unexamination of his actual position at the time of the vote. WHY?

Who benefits from the claim Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards are prowar and that Dean is antiwar?

[Padraig18]

31. He supported the resolution the ACLU called the better one.

'Nuance' this all you like, but his position and Sen. Kerry's were CLEARLY different. You also fail to acknowledge that 'no' was also an option, which is how Congressman Kucinich voted, blm. Apparent;y Dean supporters are not alone in their alleged capacity for 'black and white thinking'. Et tu, Brute? :eyes:

[blm]

32. Not the point. He supported a RESOLUTION that allowed Bush

to make the final determination for use of force. That was the salient point and THAT was the point in IWR that people like you use to harrass the other candidates. You excuse yourself that hypocrisy because of the political payoff for your candidate, but, it doesn't make it right, and it will never make it honest.

[Padraig18]

34. Sorry, no banana!

Your candidate is dishonest about his support FOR the IWR; other, more courageous Democrats, even some facing re-election but NOT running for President (like my senator, Mr. Durbin), chose to be principled and vote 'nay' when faced with the abomination that was and IS the IWR.

Your candidate has no room to call ANYONE an 'opportunist', blm--none whatsoever.

[IndianaGreen]

35. You are making a political argument. We are making a moral argument.

Here is the political argument:

1. Kerry's distinguished 20-year long record of being a champion of liberal causes is being ignored by people like us on account of one vote.

2. The IWR vote required Bush to go to the UN and to get inspectors in Iraq. Kerry wanted to give Bush authority to go to war, but only at the last resort.

3. Bush assured Kerry and others that he would use the UN and would not use force unless absolutely necessary.

4. It is unfair to judge Kerry's entire record on the basis of the one vote.

Here is the moral argument:

We must hold the Democrats that voted for IWR accountable for the consequences of their vote: 500 dead Americans, over 10,000 dead Iraqis, untold wounded on both sides, the destruction of Iraqi society, and the cruel "iron-fisted" US occupation of a sovereign nation.

The fact that Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham were not seduced by Bush's lies on WMD and voted against IWR, undercuts Kerry's defense of his vote.

[Padraig18]

37. Go to the head of the class!

That's it, in a nutshell! :thumbsup:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" --

--- Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 158 years ago

[blm]

40. Dean morally supported a resolution that allowed Bush

to make the determination for use of force?

I'm attacking THAT moral compass that only gets used against Kerry and others while you massage the portrayal of Dean.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Dean didn't have a vote in Congress!

Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham did, and they both voted against IWR.

[blm]

47. Dean said he WOULD HAVE voted for a resolution

that allowed Bush to determine use of force. That's ALL we have to really judge him on, isn't it? Everything else would be political rhetoric or gamesmanship.

Now YOU have somehow determined that Dean is antiwar while you have determined that others who supported a resolution that allowed the same resultant use of force are prowar. Why?

[Padraig18]

48. A side question?

Do you notice anyone besides other Kerry supporters defending Se. Kerry's vote?

:cricketschirping:

[Padraig18]

44. nice try!

he didn't support the resolution Sen. Kerry DID support. Nice attempt at 'nuance', though, blm.

[Scott Lee]

36. IWR = war, and every congressperson knew it.

Those who claimed they "didn't" know it are either liars or too incompetent to hold office.

It's. That. Simple.

[blm]

41. Biden-Lugar IWR = WAR. It's. That. Simple.

Those who call Kerry, Gep and Edwards prowar while calling Dean antiwar must be lying for a reason. What's the reason?

[Padraig18]

45. no one's lying.

They were CLEARLY different, something everyone but a few, select die-hard su[pporters of a certain senator recognize...

[blm]

50. Then explain how the resultant use of force would be different

and how that difference adds up to Dean being labeled Anti-Iraq war and Kerry and others being labeled prowar.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Prowar because they voted for war!

They were our elected representatives and they had a duty to challenge the assertions of the Bush regime. They also ignored the thousands of personal contacts, as well as letters, phone calls, faxes, and e-mails they received from their constituents alarmed about Bush's war plans.

They should not even be reelected for their "miserable failure" to vote against war, as it is, the end of their Presidential ambitions is but a token punishment for all the grief they have caused.

[blm]

53. and yet again you cannot explain why you say Dean is antiwar.

.

[IndianaGreen]

46. I opposed Biden-Lugar, as did Kucinich

The US had imposed "no-fly" zones over Iraq, in violation of UN resolutions, and used it as a pretext to bomb Iraq for nearly 12 years. I thought Clinton was wrong and did great evil by bombing Iraq and twisting the UN's arms to keep the embargo.

The Left has been very consistent on Iraq.

[blm]

49. Yes. Real anti-Iraq war candidates DID oppose ANY resolution

resulting in use of force.

Dean supported the same measure that would allow Bush to determine use of force as the IWR, yet he gets labeled antiwar and others are labeled prowar. Why?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. But Dean will now be tagged as a "real anti-Iraq war candidate"

as Kerry said Dean's been "all over the lot" on Iraq. That's why I put him at the opposite end of the spectrum, he is trying to enjoy both sides of the issue. Dean's support for Biden Lugar was political cover for a general election run. Problem is he's bought into his anti-war label, and Rove will re-inforce it.