I would agree with that.... But at the end of the day - this was Bush's and the neocon's war. What a horrible and stupid war it was to get involved in. Based on shaky evidence at best and pushed through the american public on the frevor from 9/11. Thumbed their noses at the world and just went in and look at the mess they created despite all the warnings. And now some want to not take blame and instead point it at the opposition minority party. How wonderful is that. Dems couldn't have even stopped it if they wanted to.
Not at all. What is the symbolic value of going to a vote when other parties have already said they were voting against it? That's silly. There is NO value in that - it doesn't serve any function. It doesn't advance a possibility of a diplomatic solution. The negotiations behind the scenes were widely publicized and captured any 'symbolic' advantage of trying to go through the UN first. Now you are misstating facts. The Bush administration DID try for to get the SC to vote on a new resolution but was rebuffed by France et al. You are acting like behind the scenes negotiations/diplomacy doesn't exist or doesn't count as diplomacy. It's akin to saying the only dilomacy that happens in the UN is the votes. That presents a massively distorted and myopic view of diplomacy. Remember that after those talks started on a new stronger resolution France came out and said point blank they would NEVER vote for a stronger resolution. That, if nothing else, triggers the exit from the 'working for' clause. I chose to believe more in Deckard's version, where they were too concerned with how it would affect their own political careers, that your's where they were just fooled into thinking a vote for intervention was not a vote for intervention. I find the assertion that Bush fooled someone to be quite humorous. But either way they are culpable, on that at least, we agree.
Hayes, I know that we agree that Congress bares some of the blame. But you keep seeming to ignore the fact that Bush told them that the vote was a vote to keep the peace. It sounds more like you believe the President lied, and that congress should not have believed his lie. Is that why it is funny to you to think of them being fooled? Because Bush did make the attempt to say that the vote would be one to preserve the peace.
Yep. The whole idea of authorizing action inherently involves the prospect of action. It's like when you give someone an ultimatum. You hope that the issuing of the ultimatum causes capitulation. That's why you issue the ultimatum instead of just taking action. But if the ultimatum does not work then you act. In this case the authorization functions as an ultimatum. Bush's words about it keeping the peace are in context with this idea. The authorization is a way to keep the peace because it may force Saddam into line. Your position makes no sense. In your view Congress voted to authorize intervention to keep peace with no expectation of action. They believed that authorization itself would 100% guarantee Saddam's capitulation. That's what they would have to believe in your scenario. The only other possibility is that they believed the authorization could affect Saddam's compliance but that if it didn't then they were actually authorizing action. That scenario fits the facts much better than your scenario. It fits the language of the resolution and it fits the comments of the Congresspeople involved. Congressional testimony makes it pretty clear that Congress favored taking action, that they authorized action. To come back now and say they didn't really authorize action but just thought the authorization itself would be enough is, IMO, preposterous. No, I tried to clarify this in an earlier post. My point is that IF you believe he lied, then Congress should not have believed the lie.
But Hayes, from the memos we have regarding meetings with Tony Blair we understand that keeping the peace was not Bush's main objectives. If Bush had said we need this authorization because I am going to remove Saddam that is one thing. But when he says that this tool really is all about preserving the peace that doesn't jibe with just hoping that Saddam will go along with what Bush wanted.
We could back and reargue Iraq from the beginning, if you want, FB. The memos don't change anything about the context of the statements, as I delineate above. For example, that exile was offered shows intervention was not a set course. Yes, yes - I know you'll claim that wasn't a real offer because we launched a strike on him, and I'll reply Saddam refused immediately making the offer void and that he could have immediately accepted proves intervention was not predetermined. See? We can rehash the whole thing but I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. The bottom line is that either way - your version or mine - Congress, including the democratic party, has some culpability for the intervention.
Yeah, it's pointless - he won't be persuaded. It seems that even if you say the Dems were at fault for voting for this resolution instead of all of them saying no...he still wants them to share half the blame for Iraq. Funny how the Repubs used the vote so harshly against the Dems in 2004.
who is the WAR party? repubs or dems? who is the architect of this war? neocons or libs? don't pass the ball now its too hot for ya..
Two days ago in this thread I said: It is apparent that you are continuing to respond without reading my posts. Responding without paying any attention to what someone says is, in fact, pointless.
then what are you saying? To what degree are Democrats responsible for this war? To what degree is Bush and Republic & Corp?
yeah, but it really doesn't say anything but that the democrats - who probably couldn't have stoped the resolution anyway - are accountable as well. Ok, so what's your point? That we shouldn't be blaming Bush for this damn war? What are you saying? spell it out please....
My original point was that neither party does a great job of financing the VA. My subsequent point was that if you're mad as hell about Iraq and you're not going to take it anymore, you need not look only at the Republican party. Voting straight Democrat, for example, is not going to fix the problem (as you see it) of Iraq nor visit retribution upon all those who got us into Iraq. Either the Democrats were willing participants in the intervention in Iraq or they were duped by Dubya (which is not a good indicator of their capability).
No, but it will deliver the message that it's "time to change course" and will force republicans to put in new strategies. leaving repubs in power will only tell them that they are making the right decisions - which they are not.
How am I mistating the facts. The US was the party that pulled out of having a vote not France. You act as though France scuttled the vote. France wasn't going to sponsor the resolution the US was. It was the US that decided not to have a vote. As for symbolic value having a vote would've have shown the US did do everything they could and further would've made everyone's position official. Behind the scenes negotiation happens but its not official. I'm going by the text of the resolution. Are you saying that the text of the resolution doesn't matter. Whether the Democrats voted to save their skins or were duped the text of the resolution intends for diplomacy. It authorizes but doesn't mandate invasion. Where Congressional Dems and Congress as a whole is culpable is for surrendering Constitutional warmaking powers to the Executive. The text of the authorization doesn't state that Congress is ordering war. While it falls under the War Powers Act it isn't a declaration of war.
Leaving the Republicans in power is not your only other option. You could, for example, vote against the Republicans and Democrats who voted for intervention in Iraq. If you are a Democrat you could vote for a different Democratic candidate in the primaries.
Well, as a registered indpendent - I can't vote in primaries. However; since politics has become a Republican vs. Democratic notion for the most part, the only way to effect change is to deliver one or both of the houses to the Dems.... Which everyone should really want anyway. Frankly, I wouldn't want the Dems to control all three branches of the gov't, so I don't know why anyone would want the opposite. Balance is good. But the repubs are going to far...they are moving this country to far in one direction - and that's not good. So I'm voting to restore balance.
You could have changed your registration to Democrat. The point is that if you vote for a Democrat who voted for the war who because they were cowardly, were stupid, or were on board - you aren't restoring balance. You're voting for someone who did want you now castigate. Further, if you want to affect change you might become an advocate for independent candidates rather than one of the two parties.
