The Hill: Chris Dodd to call on Dem candidates to embrace Feingold withdrawal bill

[flpoljunkie]

Senator Dodd is a cosponsor of Feingold's bill, S.1077.

Dodd to call on Dem candidates to embrace withdrawal bill
By Jeremy Jacobs

April 11, 2007

Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) is expected to call on his rival Democratic presidential hopefuls to support legislation that calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

In a foreign-policy address scheduled to take place Wednesday evening at the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy in Des Moines, Iowa, Dodd is set to ask the 2008 candidates to endorse a measure from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that would require the president to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of the bill’s enactment.

“After more than 3,200 lives lost, tens of thousands wounded and $400 billion spent, it is time to bring an end to a war that at every turn has failed to make America safer,” Dodd is expected to say in the speech, according to a release issued Wednesday. “The hour is late. It is time to begin putting our country on a more secure path.”

Dodd is expected to tout his experience in a field of Democrats with comparatively less experience than he has.

“Like never before, we need a president who is ready to lead from day one,” Dodd plans to say.

“There will not be a single day, a single moment for on-the-job training. Not one.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dodd-to-call-on-dem-candidates-to-embrace-withdrawal-bill-2007-04-11.html

[blm]

1. Another strong move by Dodd. He's moving up on my candidate list.

.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Perhaps why Dodd said last night on MoveOn TownHall we must "start redeploying troops this evening."

I thought it was rather an odd formulation, and he used the term more than once.

From Dodd's MoveOn transcript:

ELI PARISER: Senator Dodd, What is your plan to end the war in Iraq?

SENATOR DODD: Well, I believe that we ought to begin re-deploying our troops this evening. I’m the one that believes that, as others have stated it, there’s no military solution at all to Iraq. We need to move away from this idea that there’s a military solution. I’ve felt that for the last several years. And so, I believe that we oughta start re-deploying this evening, and over the next year, we can do that very safely, provide all the support our troops would need. We need to have a finishing date. I’m a supporter of Feingold-Reid. I believe that we ought to have an end-date of March of ’08 to provide a year-long opportunity for redeployment. I’m willing to accept during this year’s time, that training could go on the Kurdish areas of Iraq, that you could provide some border security on the Syrian and possibly on the Iranian border as well, it’s some possibility. But the overwhelming bulk of our troops ought to be moved, in my view, either to Afghanistan, where we’re in deep trouble today, or we ought to be looking at a possibility of… most of these people, clearly the ones who’ve been there several years, back home.… others you might provide some ability to have them in Qatar or Kuwait.

But idea is to begin this evening with a termination date. I also believe that we ought to have a surge in politics and diplomacy, as well as making it clear that energy policy is going to be different which is one of the major incentives. I believe that people believe we have a long term interest in staying in Iraq. If we could begin talking about removing those incentives, making us more energy independent, then the rationale and judgment that others are using for an extended stay in Iraq, I think would be eliminated. So, begin redeploying immediately, have a finish date of March of ’08, talk about a surge of diplomacy, a surge in politics in the region, which we’ve not had at all, which was recommended by the Baker-Hamilton report, and then also talk about energy independence. I think those are critical areas if we’re going to be successful, but we ought to begin immediately, I would not wait any longer.

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/transcripts_p.html#dodd

[sellitman]

2. I wonder what his girlfriend Joe will do on this?

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

Holy Joe has as much intimated that he will join GOP

if Democrats persist in troop withdrawals. Obviously Joe doesn't care how many people have to die to prevent Bush being tagged as the man that lost Iraq.

[sellitman]

14. Bolt Joe....Bolt.

Just get it over with.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I really like Dodd. nt

[bdamomma]

5. I hope more Senators will sign on.

we got to get * on this. We got to keep the pressure on these Senators.

[Hart2008]

6. Who hit us over the head with the baseball bat? You did!

Nice try Dodd.

It reminds me of the old Honeymooners routine between Ralph and Norton:
Ralph: Norton, when you got hit over the head with the baseball bat, who took you to the hospital?
I did.
Who visited you every day?
I did.
Who brought you candy and flowers?
I did.

Norton: Who hit me over the head with the baseball bat?
You did!

One unnamed Senator, possibly now a candidate for our nomination, actually said, "We'll give him this vote, get it out of the way and then be able to focus the 2002 election on the issues we do best on: the economy, education, healthcare, corporate corruption."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/four-years-later-leaders_b_43601.html
This statement is a fair representation of how this Senator’s club played politics with the matter of war and peace. To them authorizing a war was nothing more than a political football, something to punt away. And these people want to be our President?

The real question is why should any of these Senators be our nominee when they played politics with the IWR?

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[flpoljunkie]

8. Your link does not work.

[Hart2008]

9. fixed. I'd love to know which senator said that. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

10. Sadly, it could be any one of a number of Senators, though I'd put my bet on Harry Reid

[TwilightGardener]

41. Pretty sure it was Daschle.

[blm]

11. Why does anyone think that IWR took us to war? It didn't. Bush violated IWR to

go to war. Just as he would have violated ANY resolution nomatter HOW it was written.

I doubt highly that Hart believes Bush went to war because of the IWR.

[Hart2008]

12. You have forgotten about the War Powers Act.

You have forgotten about the War Powers Act. The IWR gave Bush the cover to invade. It was a derogation of the Congressional responsibility to declare war. Split all the hairs you want. Without the IWR, impeachment would now be a shoe-in. Hart is most critical of Senate Democrats:

Hart: The Democrats have failed to come up with a party position on Iraq. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to get these people into line. You can't do that with Senator Clinton saying increase troop levels.
Q: It doesn't sound as if you see Hillary Clinton as a hope for the Democratic Party.
Hart: I'm in total disagreement with her position on Iraq. It all has to do, in my judgment, with the post-Vietnam image the Democrats got of being weak on defense. So they all had to prove their muscularity by voting for this resolution. I think it was all wrong. We are a republic. We are not an empire. And this is an imperial policy.
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 01-08-06: QUESTIONS FOR GARY HART; Over Life on the Hill
New York Times, January 8, 2006
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E0D61030F93BA35752C0A9609C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHart%2c%20Gary

The IWR should never have been voted up or down. Hart had an alternative using the U.N. he suggested to both the House and Senate Democrats. They had to offer an alternative through the U.N. The Senate Democrats in particular failed to use the rules of the Senate to slow the mad rush to war or to offer a better alternative than the IWR.

http://www.RunGaryHart.com

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

13. No. Bush used the IWR as a cover, and complicit media used the ignorance of the public

to let Bush off the hook for the decision by exaggerating the role of the IWR as a vote for war.

Too bad so many blame a resolution that would have prevented war if administered honestly by any other WH - that lets Bush off the hook. Now casual citizens think Bush HAD to go in to Iraq because the IWR told him to, completely letting Bush off for violating the weapon inspections and increased diplomacy that was part of the IWR.

Blame the IWR for war and you let Bush off the hook for lying his way into war.

[Hart2008]

15. Bush's lying is not the point. IWR delegated too much power!

Of course Bush lied for the pretext to grant the IWR. Iraq was not a threat to us. Still Congress needed to rein him in and they didn't. Congress, and Congress alone, needed to pull the trigger to start the war if it was justified. Delegating the power to the President was a political cop-out and an affront to our republican (small "r") form of government. We have a President not an emperor under our Constitution.

There is a whole other thread on where this is going...

http://www.RunGaryHart.com

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

16. No matter HOW a resolution was written it would have been violated and the lies

would have adjusted - that's it. This whole framing of the debate as if the IWR was to blame was always a stupid one because it only benefitted Bush and the media spin they wanted - that's IT.

[Hart2008]

17. Then why give him any resolution and let him hang himself?

They could have filibustered if they wanted to do it. They could have bottled it up in the Senate, or forced him to act through the U.N. If he invaded anyhow, then it is a clear impeachable offense. With the IWR he got political cover, because IWR deferred to Bush’s judgment when to start an elective war.

These Senators choose to play politics with the war. It is that simple.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

21. Because he would then just use 1991 UN res., and the negotiations on IWR also took

Iran and Syria attacks off the table by those Dem senators stuck doing the negotiating.

[Hart2008]

22. That is a stretch and would be much easier to impeach on.

That is a stretch and would be much easier to impeach on.

When no real violation of the Gulf War cease fire were found.

Your mind is going around in circles. Bush had no authority to attack Iran or Syria from the Gulf War.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

26. You're wrong - it's what Blair wanted to do because they were on more solid legal

ground with the original UN res. But Bush wanted the political game to divide Dem party before the 2002 election.

BTW - I guess many forgot that the UN also voted a resolution for force after the Powell presentation in Feb 2003. No one seems to blame THEM for the war - why? Because Bush skirted their resolution, too, and dismissed calls to go back as he was supposed to do - just as he did the IWR.

If more people spent time crapping on Buh for violating the IWR instead of blaming the IWR it would have made it alot easier for Dems opposing him the past 4 years.

[Hart2008]

29. How were they on solid ground with forged "evidence"?

Congress is sovereign not the U.N on the issue of declaring war. The U.N. got bullied by the US. Nothing in the U.N. binds the U.S. Congress to start a war.

NOTHING

UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION!
READ IT!

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

32. That's not what I said - Blair's legal people had the position that an Iraq invasion would be

on more solid legal ground by sticking with the original UN resolution instead of calling for any new resolution for use of force.

You would prefer they went that route and then used the invasion to force their way into Iran and Syria? Those Dems who were stuck negotiating the IWR did end up trading support to get Syria and Iran taken OFF the table.

And when it comes right down to it, the IWR in ANY form would have been violated - even if it had been written in a form that insisted that WMDs be marched down the street in front of the capitol, because then BushInc would have just made certain those WMDs were planted.

And if that happened, where would the debate be right now?

[Hart2008]

34. WTF does Blair's legal people know about the U.S. Constitution?

Blair wanted to use phoney evidence, i.e., the bogus uranium letter from Niger as an excuse to say Iraq was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire. The "evidence" was clearly a fraud, and as such, impeachable if used to invade Iraq.

But all of this is moot now because of the IWR. Your logic runs in circles. Bush was going to war But all of this is moot now because of the IWR. Your logic runs in circles. Bush was going to war regardless of what the Congress authorized, therefore Congress had to authorize the IWR.

Again, if Bush was going to do what he wanted regardless of the law, then why give him political cover with the IWR?

THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE LET HIM HANG HIMSELF. HART GAVE THEM POLITICAL COVER WITH HIS SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: USE THE U.N., BUT NO VOTE ON IWR AS DICTATED, AND NO INVASION WITHOUT AN OUTRIGHT WAR RESOLUTION FROM THE CONGRESS.

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE IS THAT DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR IWR HAS ENABLED BUSH AND THE REPUKES TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IRAQ INVASION AND OCCUPATION.

BEFORE WE GO INTO THE NEXT ELECTION THIS PARTY NEEDS TO PUT ITS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER!
THAT MEANS NO SENATOR WHO VOTED FOR THE IWR IS THE NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT.

END OF DISCUSSION.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

35. I love Hart - Hart is a brilliant, reasoned man.

My beef with you and others is that YOU are the ones giving Bush political cover and have been since you ELEVATE the import of the IWR as an influence on Bush's decision when it DID NOT have any influence whatsoever on Bush's decision.

YOU give him cover for violating the iWR when you say IWR was a vote for war. just like the media did. Spun the iWr right out of the gate as a vote for war so it was easy to ignore all those voices telling Bush he had to let the weapon inspections finish because they were proving force was not needed - as per the IWR. So Bush had to LIE in his letter of determination to congress.

But hey - that's not what media talked about - they only said that IWR meant congress voted for war and THAT lie gave Bush all the political cover he needed.

[Hart2008]

37. BLM has a beef with Senator Byrd. IWR="blank check" for Bush

"Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution. "This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." "
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

IWR was a vote to delegate power.

Those who delegated that power are still responisble for that vote AND the consequences of that vote.


http://www.RunGaryHart.com

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

40. And even if Byrd wrote the IWR himself, Bush still would've violated it to go to war.

Then, I suppose Byrd and everyone who voted for Byrd's bill would have voted for war because the media said so.

Blank check rhetoric GAVE BUSH COVER to violate the guidelines of the IWR that called for weapons inspections and increased diplomacy measures.

Bush and media could avoid all accountability for the weapon inspection reports that were proving force was unnecessary - as per IWR guidelines - because too many were willing to repeat the blank check and vote was for war memes. That inaccuracy led to the idea that Bush was going to war BECAUSE of the IWR.

[Hart2008]

42. Just the facts Ma'am. No hypotheticals. Your mind runs in logical circles.

Senator Byrd did not write the IWR The White House Wrote it. The IWR is a grant of SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION for the President to use military force against Iraq IF HE DETERMINES IT WAS NECESSARY:

“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.”
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution_3.htm
Had the IWR not delegated the power to determine to the President if causae bellorum existed to invade Iraq, had the Congress refused to authorize the President to invade, then any invasion of Iraq put the President in jeopardy of Impeachment for violation of the War Powers Act (which you insist on ignoring):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The wiser course was for the Congress to demand that Bush work with the U.N. and the International community, as Hart had suggested to them. Otherwise, they needed to bottle up the White House proposed IWR in the Senate until it was changed. (This is the same thing the Repukes are doing now with the withdraw legislation) Despite the valiant efforts of Senator Byrd to do just that, YOU now accuse him and the other Senators who worked with him of “Blank check rhetoric” which “GAVE BUSH COVER to violate the guidelines of the IWR that called for weapons inspections and increased diplomacy measures.” The problem is that Senator Byrd and others correctly recognized that these “guidelines” are completely worthless since the IWR leaves it to the President’s determination how to use the guidelines.

You distinction is without a difference.
I don’t see a difference. Senator Byrd didn’t see a difference. Joe Sixpack won’t see the difference.

You have twisted your mind into an endless loop: The President was going to war regardless of what Congress did, therefore Congress had to pass the IWR.
Again,
1) The President could not go to war without facing impeachment without Congressional authorization as required by the War Powers Act. (The law you insist on ignoring.)
2) The IWR was a specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Act for the President to start a war if in HIS determination and HIS determination alone it is advisable.
3) Congress unwisely delegated the power to declare war, Congress’s Constitutional prerogative, to a war mongering President.
4) Democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate, who voted for the IWR gave the President bi-partisan support to invade Iraq, when the President determined it advisable IN HIS JUDGMENT ALONE.

You refuse to acknowledge that Dems in the Senate had the power to alter the outcome of the IWR and instead passively voted up the resolution that they could have altered in the Senate.

This war has been so badly misrepresented and managed that the Democrats have the opportunity for a landslide victory in November 2008, the likes of which has not been seen since 1964. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT PUT OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER. THE SENATORS WHO VOTED FOR THE IWR WERE ENABLERS FOR THE IRAQ INVASION. NOMINATING ANY SENATOR WHO VOTED FOR THE IWR JEOPARDIZES NOT ONLY A LANDSLIDE WIN IN NOVEMBER, BUT IT RISKS LOSING THE PRESIDENCY AGAIN.

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL-AIDE!

http://www.RunGaryHart.com

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Hart2008]

31. The Democrats who supported IWR made the war Bipartisan

"If more people spent time crapping on Buh for violating the IWR instead of blaming the IWR it would have made it alot easier for Dems opposing him the past 4 years."

Opposing Bush on the IWR would have made it easier to blame Bush and the Repukes in Congress for the War.

The Democrats who supported IWR gave it the cover of bi-partisanship.

"I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'"-Gary Hart

(Hart suggested increasing inspections by 3 or 4 fold with a U.N. force, a nationwide no fly-zone, and inspections of all commerce entering an leaving Iraq. All of which would have been cheaper than the war and present occupation.) To make such an alternative proposal required thought and effort, and was something none of these Senators choose to do.
“The Democrats have failed to come up with a party position on Iraq. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to get these people into line… It all has to do, in my judgment, with the post-Vietnam image the Democrats got of being weak on defense. So they all had to prove their muscularity by voting for this resolution. I think it was all wrong. We are a republic. We are not an empire. And this is an imperial policy. “
Gary Hart-The Sage of Troublesome Gulch, Colorado

ALL OF THESE SENATORS ARE NOW COMPROMISED IN A GENERAL ELECTION ON THE ISSUE.

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL-AIDE

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[karynnj]

47. He actually claimed he could use the vague War on Terror

resolution that authorized Bush to fight "terrorists". In fact, ignoring whether the IWR was the right resolution, Bush implicitly conceded that argument then by getting a resolution. One of the few good things the IWR did was limit it to Iraq.

So, it means 2 things:
- He conceded that the 2001 authorization did not allow anything but getting Al Qaeda.
- The IWR is just for Iraq

Therefore, he needs authorization to attack Iran. (though he has been hinting otherwise)

The truth of the matter is that key Democrats should have refused to vote on this before the Nov election.

[Hart2008]

48. The War Powers Act still controls all of this.

Congress won't tie the President's hands to act defensively, but when the President sends troops into harm's way, the War Powers Act applies:
"the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

You really need to read the actual wording of the resolution about fighting terrorists to see how it applies vis-a-vie the War Powers Act. Somehow, I don't think authorizing commandos to find terrorist cells is the same as invading a sovereign state. This administration, however, does play fast and loose with the rules, when it acknowledges that there are any rules.

Incidentally, Hart's latest book details the need for more commando units and less aircraft carriers.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[karynnj]

49. I agree that it did NOT authorise and invasion

that in fact was the position of most Democrats - including Kerry in summer 2002 and was a point made in a Sept 6 2002 NYT oped.

Concerning:
" Incidentally, Hart's latest book details the need for more commando units and less aircraft carriers."

This is consistent with Kerry's proposals in September 2004. He spoke of that at the University of Pennsylvania - when he also spoke of how the war on terror would be mostly law enforcement and intelligence and occasionally military. He was clear that specialized comando units were what he meant by Military. He also called for more special forces units at his September 9, 2006 Real Security Speech where he was introduced by Gary Hart. I saw and heard these two men speak of each other on this very issue - and they are in agreement.

[Hart2008]

50. Well it should be consistent. Hart was advising him about this in '04!

Hart has never been selfish with his ideas. They have known each other since the early 70's.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[karynnj]

51. I know and they both spoke of that

Other than Kerry, Hart was the candidate that most interested me in my whole voting life. Kerry had his own experience - through BCCI etc (not VN) - and many of those ideas of dealing with non state terrorism were in his 1997 book. They both gave a lot of credit to each other. Kerry also has credited Clark.

[flpoljunkie]

18. He did, but what about Senators who voted against IWR, like Feingold, Boxer, Durbin, 20 others.

I don't believe they trusted Bush to keep his word that "war was his last resort'--any more than we did. I did not believe Bush for a minute, and I was very disappointed when Kerry voted for the IWR--a vote which he now deeply regrets.

[Hart2008]

23. Voting Bush the IWR was like giving a drunk your car keys.

The owner of the car is responsible for the resulting vehicular homicide.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[karynnj]

33. I heard Hart speak in Boston on September 9, 2006

at Faneuil Hall. He spoke about the great Senators who he served with while he was in the Seante and how there were few Senators of that quality now. Judging from his comments, he was in Boston for a man who he would likely have supported had he run. He had written a letter in support of that man's October 2005 Iraq plan.

The event - John Kerry's Real Security speech. Now, Kerry is not running and I incidently share your enthuiasm about Gary Hart. He was an exciting candidate when he ran. In retrospect, he would have been a brilliant choice for VP in 2004.

Hart was an author of the Hart/Rudman terrorism report that the Bush administration ignored. He also had many issues where he and Kerry had very similar interests. Hart's terrorism credentials would let him point out Kerry's own credentials. Between them they would have been one of the most creative, smartest, knowlegable and experienced teams to run.
His affair with Donna Rice was 20 years before and his marriage survived it.

The point - you are using Hart's words to imply something I don't think Hart would say - that no one who voted for the IWR should be President. All I know is that his praise for Senator Kerry was effusive, very warm and it sounded like it was from his heart.

[Hart2008]

36. I don’t speak for Hart. I speak about Hart.

I don’t speak for Hart. I speak about Hart.

The war has become the issue. Dems can't exploit the issue if they nominate someone who supported the war. If the Dems nominate a Senator who voted for the IWR the Repukes will nominate a governor who didn't have to vote on the issue and who will say the war had bi-partisan support.
No political gain for the Dems.

Hart endorsed Kerry in 2003 after taking a long look at running himself and decided that Kerry was the best qualified of the group to be President. That is not to say that Kerry's vote on IWR was right. Kerry himself now admits it was wrong. Sometimes we all have to make tough decisions on things. Hart himself was always forgiving. He didn’t fire people who worked for him when they screwed up his campaign.

Hart believes very deeply that it is an imperial (or neo-imperial) war and didn't make the country safer. Hart has written much about restoring the Republic. The whole concept of the war for empire violates the idea of the Republic. What Hart also would bring is a resume in Defense policy, International relations, and protecting the homeland that is unmatched in this field. He would also get votes from dissatisfied Republicans, independents, Libertarains, etc., particularly in Western states. I don’t know of any of this clique of Senators who can seriously make that claim. They are all compromised by their support for the war.

My assertion stands: These Senators, including Kerry, let themselves get caught in the politics of the war. They didn’t stand up and be counted. There is no reason to nominate any of them.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

43. Hart is a solid thinker and would never promote the idea that IWR led this nation to war.

The Downing Street Memos PROVE that they were prepared to do what was necessary to have their war, including planting WMDs - then where would our opposition voices be with the WH and media harping about how Bush;s war saved us from certain destruction for the last 4 years.

[Hart2008]

44. Senate Dems who supported the IWR hardly qualify for “Profiles in Courage”!

No doubt Bush was the leader, but Senate Dems were complicit. Senate Dems gave the drunk the car keys. They still delegated authorization under the War Powers Act to Bush, and they could have filibusterd the vote. Votes on War and Peace are serious things. Yes Bush committed fraud to get the IWR, but the Senate Dems didn’t have to buy what Bush was selling. Now it is harder to hold the Repukes accountable, since so many Dems joined them in the IWR vote. Repukes will now say the war had bi-partisan support, etc., etc.

Again, without the IWR, impeachment is a shoe-in.

Without Dem support, Repukes face the voters without a bi-partisan fig leaf.

What Hart does criticize is the lack of Dem foreign policy, ceding the mantle of foreign policy expertise to Repukes, and a lack party unity on the war votes. All of which led the party to the current position on the war.

http://www.RunGaryHart.com


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[blm]

45. Wrong - IWR should be used to IMPEACH Bush. Bush lied in his official letter to

congress (as per IWR) when he said our national security was at risk by determination made after weapon inspections and diplomacy measures (as per IWR) were actually working to PROVE the exact opposite - that force was NOT necessary.

A president is forbidden to lie in an official letter to congress.

But all those who helped BushInc's mythology reIWR and helped demonize the IWR as if it were the problem sure made it difficult for those trying to spotlight Bush's violations of it.

[Hart2008]

46. That is not because of IWR. It is lying in general, and it is hard to "prove" to Repukes

To prove lying requires proving intent, which is very hard to do, and Repuke votes are needed to convict. An unlikely outcome at present, but it could change.

This conversation is returning to your familiar logical circle.

It’s like giving car keys to a drunk.

You keep saying the drunk shouldn’t have been driving.

I keep saying, “yes, but they shouldn’t have given the drunk the keys and they had to try to stop him:

Both are responsible in different degrees, but both are responsible for the resulting vehicular homicide.

You refuse to acknowledge the lesser degree of responsibility by the Dems in the Senate for the problem.

The founding fathers foresaw a President like Bush. That is why they gave the Congress to sole power to declare war:

“In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson

The Dems in the Senate who voted the IWR up placed their faith in a man, and unshackled him from the chain of the Constitution.

We are still cleaning up the mess.

http://www.RunGaryHart.com


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[ClassWarrior]

38. Why should we forgive anyone for making a mistake?

Why do we value flexibility and adaptability and the willingness to change for the better?

Why do we believe in redemption?

Maybe because we're Progressives?

:shrug:

And besides, if you were a Congressperson, I suppose you would have been cavalier with your constituents' lives if you were told by the White House that there was a risk of nuclear threat?

:eyes:

NGU.

[Larkspur]

7. Good for Dodd.

By co-sponsoring the Feingold-Reid bill, he's doing pennance for voting for IWR in 2002 and is showing strong leadership on this topic.

[NormanYorkstein]

19. Good for Dodd! Dodd/Obama 2008!

[babylonsister]

20. Rec'd! A person with a spine is a beautiful sight! nt

[Hart2008]

27. Where was Dodd’s spine on October 11th, 2002?

It is nice that Chris Dodd finally wants to bring the troops home, but it will take a year he says to get them all out.

Why did it take him this long to figure this out?

Does he have a spine, or is he still playing politics with the war?

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Czolgosz]

24. GO DODD GO!

[flpoljunkie]

25. Obama just said on CNN he's "not yet at point where he's ready to cut off funding."

This was a teaser from Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room for his upcoming interview with Obama. I don't like hearing this from Obama, as no Democrat is cutting off funding for troops in the field--as long as they are in the field. Obama's bill sets a "goal" of getting troops out of Iraq by the end of March 31, 2008--not a deadline.

Perhaps there's more from the interview to make this look differently, but I don't think so.

Come on, Obama! Stand up for the troops and get them out of this unwinnable occupation that you so eloquently have described!

Why is this so hard for the Democrats to get across? Their bill funds the troops and it also funds a the beginning of a redeployment out of Iraq.

[flpoljunkie]

28. ...Not at point where we immediately have to cut off funding." This is not what Feingold bill does.

Dammit, Obama! This is not good enough and it's not honest. You sound like a cautious Hillary Clinton.

Feingold bill does not cut off funding until March 31, 2008, and also has three exceptions.

April 10, 2007

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.

“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/04/20070410.html

[ClassWarrior]

39. It doesn't even draw down immediately!

It only starts the draw-down 120 days after the bill is signed. So "immediate" is a weasel word for anyone who doesn't want to commit to the inevitable withdrawal.

NGU.

[bigwillq]

30. Good move Dodd.

I am proud of my senator. :bounce: