I challenge anyone who thinks IWR was not a vote for war...

[CTLawGuy]

to go into the DU archives, pull out a statement of YOURS from June 2002 to Jan 2003, saying that IWR was NOT a vote for war.

Prove once and for all your position is not revisionist history.

[samrock]

1. hehe I just joined ths year, BUT

It is naive to think that IF George did NOT win that vote.. ( course if they counted the votes before hand and knew they would lose.. there never would have been a vote)... That he would have not STILL gone into Iraq.. He said he did not NEED that vote.. he had UN approval ( he claimed) and would have added a few goos lies on top...

[CTLawGuy]

2. so that makes it ok to vote for the war?

please explain.

[Zachstar]

4. That is off topic!

The OP asks for a reading into the archive! Let us stick to that please!

[Hepburn]

39. How about telling all of us EXACTLY how he would have done that???

You keep saying that even without Congress giving over their Article One, Section 8 powers to him, he would have gone to war with Iraq. Care to explain how he would have done that without that authorization? What?? Just pulled some legal authority to do so out of the air? We were NOT under threat of imminent attack that he had to ward off to prevent certain harm and disaster...so exactly what grounds would he have used if there had been no IWR???

Try thinking this through with some idea of what the US Const provides, OK?

[CoffeeCat]

3. Everyone understands it was a vote for war...

...to suggest otherwise is a insult to our intelligence and a perverse distortion of
reality.

I am astounded that anyone would actually suggest so.

The title of the vote was: "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."

Hillary Clinton stood on the Senate floor, during her speech and said, "This is the hardest decision
I have ever had to make. "

Clearly, it was a vote for war. To suggest otherwise is counter-intuitive. Those and the words of someone
who holds the American people in contempt; and who will lie to them without conscience.

[earthlover]

29. If Hillary did not understand it was a War Resolution,as in IWR, should disqualify her

from serious consideration on the basis of illiteracy, not to mention lack of judgement on day one

[cali]

5. You won't get a single taker

the only difference between the assholes claiming it was a vote for diplomacy and holocaust deniers, is one of degree. It's revisionist history and it is ugly.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. Who did you vote for in the presidential race in Nov of 04?

[Lucinda]

10. I'd love to see who Obama supporters voted for

[cali]

21. Dean, of course. And yes, I voted for Kerry in the general

but I will NEVER vote for someone in the primary who voted to go to war in Iraq.

[CTLawGuy]

11. I voted for Dean

and then supported the Democratic Nominee because that person was better than George Bush.

[lapfog_1]

15. Wrote in Dean in the primaries...

he was against the war.

[Ravy]

7. An *authorization* for war is different than a war.

The president is authorized to launch nukes against China under certain conditions. Has Congress voted for war on China?

[CTLawGuy]

12. that's a little different

Iraq = invasion and overthrow of legitimate government of a sovereign nation followed by subsequent occupation.

China = guidelines for use of nuclear weapons against China for self-defense.

[Ravy]

14. I am tired of Bush apologists saying that Congress voted to start the war.

It was Bush's call, unfortunately.

The IWR was a pathway for eventually ending the sanctions in Iraq that were killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

It didn't have to end in an invasion. It should not have ended in an invasion. After the IWR, Bush made sure we went to war. That is why his support in the Security Council dropped from 10-0 to a point where he couldn't even muster 5 votes and he and Blair refused to go back to them. It was obvious that Bush was not living up to our side of the IWR, namely letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs.

Bush deserves the blame, no matter how much some choose to blame it in Congress.

[CTLawGuy]

16. Congress has the sole power to authorize war

if they choose to give that sole responsiblity to the president, they are responsible for how he exercises it.

[Ravy]

20. Not even close. Look at the War Powers Act. Congress can *declare* war.

This is not a declared war.

[CTLawGuy]

22. same thing

declaration in substance rather than in form.

[Ravy]

23. I am sure Bush is happy you believe that. "Congress declared war on Iraq...

.. I was only doing what they told me to do."

[CTLawGuy]

24. no

he exercised the authority that Congress have him, and Congress is responsible for the decision.

[Ravy]

28. I put the responsibility on Bush, not Congress. We will just have to disagree there. nt

[Hepburn]

38. Absolutely and totally correct!

And...this is one of the things that has bothered me the most ~~ Congress just fucking handing over its powers to Monkey Boy. Like, "Here, George, it's your baby....we don't want to be involved." If the Founding Fathers thought the POTUS should have that power, then why in the hell did they put Article One, Section Eight in the document???

[lapfog_1]

18. Hey, if Iraq launched missiles at us, there isn't a need for a vote

just like your example.

But this was preemptive war, a war of choice, and Bush needed some document to hang his hat on. The IWR was it.

[Ravy]

26. If Iraq does not abide by the terms of their cease-fire, it is null and void.

Here is the point your side is, and I admit effectively by most counts, glossing over.

What made it pre-emptive is that Bush called it *before* there was evidence of Iraq hiding WMD. If there were stores of WMD that Saddam was hiding, and he refused to destroy them then it would not have been a pre-emptive war.

As it turned out, Saddam was complying (mostly). He was even seeking asylum in another country. Bush invaded anyway.

[lapfog_1]

31. So you are saying that Bush DIDN'T need the IWR

or a security council resolution, because of dubious claims that Iraq voided the terms of the cease fire, right?

So why bother asking for both?

Also, how exactly does Saddam PROVE a negative (I can PROVE I don't have WMDs!, just watch...)???

And you are postulating that IF Saddam had WMDs that it wouldn't be a pre-emptive war? Really? I believe that there are a number of countries around the world, some of which are havens for terrorists (state sponsored and all), that HAVE WMD's and delivery systems.

North Korea. Pakistan.

Why pick on Iraq for a pre-emptive war?

Hell, we are still, technically, at war with North Korea. We signed a cease fire, but our declared ally has never signed a formal document with the North Koreans. We could invade at any moment. And they have WMD's and are known to work with others to develop WMDs. Why not invade North Korea?

More to the point, it's long been known that OBL hangs out in northern Pakistan WITH the sponsorship of the ISI. The main reason that Clinton's attack on OBL (firing missiles at his training camp) didn't work is that some asshat in the Pentagon tipped off the ISI that we were launching missiles to overfly their territory. They called OBL and he made his escape.

Why not invade Pakistan? At any point in time they could give a nuke to OBL and his people. A nuke that we know they have...

[Ravy]

36. I think it is widely acknowledged that Bush did not need the IWR.

Just as Clinton did not need the Congress for Kosovo.

From the Democrat's perspective, the IWR was the last chance of a diplomatic solution. There were no teeth behind the UN Sanctions. Some UN diplomats and others were getting rich off of the "Oil-for-food" program, and there was no push to end the devistating sanctions that weren't personally hurting Saddam in the least. Inaction had a price, too.

It is only pre-emptive if it is without cause. Violating a cease fire agreement is cause. Viloating it while he was complying with UN regulations is pre-emptive and that is what makes it illegal. And that is what Bush did.

President Clinton bombed Iraq, too, but with reason. I don't consider him a war criminal.

[Ravy]

37. Also, in further response to your last post....

I am not in favor of invading North Korea, Pakistan, or other countries. I was not in favor of the invasion of Iraq either.


But, I am certainly not opposed to using the threat of US military action to make them behave better.

[indimuse]

8. the entire video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA&feature=related


listen and watch...LEARN!

[rodeodance]

9. puff----yawn. got get em!

[msongs]

13. obama votes to support and fund the occupation and murder of iraqis nt

[CTLawGuy]

19. Obama votes

to protect our troops with body armor, and food, while they are stuck there in a war Hillary voted for.

[jpak]

17. A yes vote for the IWR was a vote for peace and reconciliation - not war

A non-vote for the IWR meant swift and instant patriotic preemptive invasion of a country that posed no threat to the US but was behind the 9/11 attacks nonetheless and had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed (along with drones-of-death and aluminum tubes) from known unknown palm groves located northwest of Baghdad in 45 minutes of less.

FYI

[suston96]

25. It was not a vote for "war"...It was a vote to use force but only if.......

...diplomacy and the UN failed to allow inspection and search for WMD:

It was NOT a vote for "war"....... It was a vote for reasoned diplomacy.........

Hillary Clinton said very clearly before the senate vote, what it was:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

*******

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

[cali]

33. She lied. It's that simple.

She knew it was a vote for war.

[jpak]

34. what's worse - all the dems that voted for it trusted and supported Bush

more stupid than stupid

[suston96]

35. She did not lie. Bush lied...But hey, defending Bush is part of the Obama strategy....

Don't blame Bush, blame Hillary Clinton - it's working! So keep doing it.

[killbotfactory]

40. Hey, guess what? diplomacy and weapon inspections didn't fail

Bush cut short inspections, bypassed the UN, and invaded. Despite this, Clinton still supported the war.

He was able to do this because the IWR left it up to Bush to decide when diplomacy had failed. He decided diplomacy had failed when the UN refused to rubber stamp the war before inspections were finished. Great piece of legislation, that IWR, Clinton should be proud of voting for it today, like she was a year ago.

[samrock]

27. Are the people on this board so naive

To ACTUALLY belive that IF congress and NOT approved the IWR that George Bush would not have sent troops into Iraq????

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. Obama's record is even less defensible.......

He said he was against the war until he had a Senate vote. Then he voted for each and every pro-war appropriation

[LWolf]

32. Of course it was a vote for war.

I believe Obama would have voted for it were he in the senate at that time, regardless of what he may have said in a speech. He wasn't exactly against the war after he got to the Senate, voting to fund it every chance he got until the primary season heated up.

His position seems a lot more ambiguous than his "I was against the war from the beginning" rhetoric indicates.

<snip>

RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of '04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of '04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

But wait. Wasn't it Obama who's been criticizing other Democrats, specifically Clinton, for triangulation, calculating quotes and saying different things to different audiences to avoid alienating any potential voters?

Neither Obama nor Clinton is clean on the Iraq War, which pretty much takes the war off the campaign table for anyone who can be honest about it. Apparently, Democrats like to pretend to be against the war, but will vote for war-supporters over anti-war candidates without hesitation.