Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I always knew that Hillary had it in her [View all]BlueStateLib
(937 posts)74. Some will never understand it because they don't get it and don't want too
Their were only 2 options on the table and the third option of doing nothing was not one of them
Liberal Magazine The Nation: "Antiwar forces in the United States and around the world can claim the recent UN resolution (1441) as a partial victory. The resolution does not endorse the use of force; it redefines the Iraq crisis, at least in the international arena, as one of disarmament, not regime change; and it will at least delay a US attack"
http://www.thenation.com/article/half-victory-un/
http://www.thenation.com/article/half-victory-un/
In 1992 the Gulf War had 52-47 senate votes and in 2002 the Iraq War Resolution had 76-23. Don't you find it curious (in your view) why so many democrats would vote for war. But they did not vote for WAR, the Democrats traded a YES vote on A.U.M.F. for a Bush promise to go to U.N. which he kept. Bush got the U.N. to pass Res 1441 and Saddam gave in and allow weapons inspectors with unlimited inspection.
If Bush stopped and didn't invade Iraq and let and allowed the u.n. weapons inspectors to do their job, it would looked like a brilliant foreign policy move. Bush got greedy and lust for war overwhelmed him, he did not follow through on 2nd U.N. vote abandoning any hope for a large U.N. sponsored coalition. Bush also failed to get a promised 2nd vote from congress before invading Iraq.
30,000 US Troops Already In Iraq
September 16, 2002
Around 100 US/UK jet fighters 10 days ago bombed and destroyed airbases H-3 and al-Baghdadi in western Iraq, close to the Jordanian border. Earlier, on 5 August, the allied forces destroyed an air defense base in southwest Iraq, near the Saudi border. Reports indicate that the Iraqi forces have withdrawn from the air bases and the command and control centers that were bombed, and have been replaced by US forces which have started repairing the bases to use them later. Before that, US forces, supported by Turkish troops, penetrated northern Iraq and reached a distance of around 30km from Mosul and Kirkuk. The reports also indicate that the US and allied forces are a few kilometers away from Basra, and US and allied forces now occupy more than 15% of Iraqi territory.
Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002
On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:
1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2
2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·
Senate A.U.M.F. Debate 10/10/2002
Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.
Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.
Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.
Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.
Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
ask bernie for an f35. he will do anything for the MIC if they will put an f35 in Vermont nt
msongs
Mar 2016
#1
Clinton's vote helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and you want to
rhett o rick
Mar 2016
#94
The only way to change a political climate that you don't like is to fight back n/t
eridani
Mar 2016
#96
Is that all you people have? change the subject. GOD, it is so Rovian. A.D.D.
pdsimdars
Mar 2016
#66
You are kidding, right? Those "folks" don't do any thinking. Go ahead, put on ignore.
pdsimdars
Mar 2016
#67
The question "why didn't Bernie run for President 25 years ago and challenge Bill" is a
ladjf
Mar 2016
#105
Thanks for the polite response, but it's really not that shallow of a question
R B Garr
Mar 2016
#108
I think the Clintons turned hard right much earlier than after the Clinton Presidency
BernieforPres2016
Mar 2016
#24
Way before that. . . . start a list of all the HORRIBLE bills he signed that ruined the country
pdsimdars
Mar 2016
#68
Another anti-Democrat thread. We get it, you hate Hillary and really don't like Democrats.
leftofcool
Mar 2016
#12
Only since "Democrat" came to mean "the OTHER corporate suck-up warmongering party".
Jester Messiah
Mar 2016
#104
The epoch we are leaving is the Age of Pisces, The Fish. It began around the birth of the Christ
FlatBaroque
Mar 2016
#60
That is the sad truth. She calls herself a Democrat but she is authoritarian neocon.
thereismore
Mar 2016
#30
another example of McCarthyism: unsupported charges & demonization of HRC and her suppporters
Bill USA
Mar 2016
#48
Don't be so sad - Bernie is catching up and is our best weapon against Donald Dump
lagomorph777
Mar 2016
#50
Just like the GOP, all you Hillary supporters only seem to be here to counter everything
pdsimdars
Mar 2016
#71
For single payer health care, an end to the War on Some Drugs, for expanding Social Security
eridani
Mar 2016
#99
Especially when she was offered briefs on the situation... And ignored 'em. nt
VulgarPoet
Mar 2016
#124
Some will never understand it because they don't get it and don't want too
BlueStateLib
Mar 2016
#74
I love this post because it touches a profound sadness that so many of us feel in our hearts. nt
JudyM
Mar 2016
#91
I do know Hillary has it in her to sell us all out in one term, It won't take two like it took Bill
TumbleAndJumble
Mar 2016
#97
This may be the election that redefines the parties. The Democrats may evolve into the party of the
Attorney in Texas
Mar 2016
#119
good post, CoffeeCat...you really energized the Third Way Response Team with this one...
islandmkl
Mar 2016
#122