"support a resolution barring the president from taking substantial military action against Iran without prior congressional approval?" I do not get this. I thought only Congress had the authority to declare war (substantial military action). I think we need a few exemplary punishments of lawbreakers rather than a resolution that might imply that non-existent authority actually exists.

Waging war on bad intelligence? Upping the ante for declaring war? Reducing the appetite for war? All good lessons to learn.

How about doling out punishment to those who choose to wage war based on 'cooked' intelligence?

Forget about democracy in the context that US politicians will do anything that a significant portion of the people want them to do.

Forget that Iran is a democratic nation, too.

I am glad someone is making this point. While jabbing Bush over WMD's and WMD intelligence or lack thereof was mildly entertaining, it was clear from the beginning that the agenda was to try to create a model democracy in the center of Islamic Aisa, and that WMD's was just a convenient partial justification.

The real lesson here is indeed that our "Democracy-in-a-Box" kit (some assembly required!) doesn't work very well. Kosovo, Somalia, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. etc. are not really better places in the long term after various US applications of force.

To both Republicans and Democrats, preemptive war remains on the table. Which means there will be more Iraqs in our future.

Bush could attack Iran tomorrow and Democrats like Senator Clinton would debate the merits of the policy instead of stating the obvious: preemptive war is criminal.

…it's nice to know that Clinton and Edwards claim they're going to approach the intelligence with a more skeptical eye this time around. More important, though, are their views on (a) whether they approve of using military force to prevent Iran from someday going nuclear if they feel there's no other way to stop it…

Hillary Clinton has the same position as the Bush administration on Iran.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

…

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

It's important to remember that George Bush didn't use the imposition of democracy to sell his war in Iraq. That particular rationalization didn't come out until several of the previous rationalizations had been exhausted.

I don't want to hear anyone who voted to give the drunk the keys whine because they didn't know the fucker would crash the car. What the fuck? It was a real safe bet that the jackass would speed through town, running down pets and pedestrians and tossing his beer cans out the window, till the telephone pole jumped out in front of him.

How about doling out punishment to those who choose to wage war based on 'cooked' intelligence?

Hear, hear. Im-peach.

Ummm, don't mean to be "simple-minded" or anything, but does an appeal to international law still not mean anything if the US is involved and wants to attack someone without any rational justification whatsoever? (Or does Iran have the right to preemptively attack the US, since the US is a lot closer to declaring war on them than they are on the US?)

F*ck Hillary and f*ck Edwards. There was more than enough resonable questioning about the truth of this invasion. Everyone from Molly Ivings to Scott Ritter were raising significant questions.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, these political chickens took what they thought was a safe, easy way out.

By selling out their moral obligations, they hoped that the Right would stay off their backs ad that the war would be over before the Left would have reason to really pitch a bitch fest.

They lost, and so did we. And now they want to use Iran to buy back their sullied morality for a few cents on the dollar.

I thought only Congress had the authority to declare war (substantial military action).

Only Congress has the power to declare war. However, it is broadly accepted that the President has the power to use military force in an emergency situation, defensively, in the absence of (though not contrary to) Congressional action; this includes preemption in at least the traditional sense of a response to a specific, imminent attack.

President Bush has claimed outright that he believes preemption should be understood in a vastly broader sense than the traditional one, so such an action by Congress could serve as a valuable "advance notice" of Congress' view; to be followed with punishment if necessary.

After reading this I doubt I’ll be able to take Edwards seriously as a candidate.

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

The ignorance of the hawks in this administration was astonishing -- who was it that said that their war to export democracy could wreck our own...

A ruinous and catastrophic policy from bogus rantings about WMDs, lies piled on top of lies, and use of fear to fuel their mission.

Poll numbers: Dubya's ratings match Richard Nixon's on the eve of Nixon's resignation.

I suppose this could be called progress, but as a Hillary/Edwards fan I am still disappointed by all this tap dancing.

The naked fact that nobody wants to come out and say is that they were voting for whatever GWB wanted because to do anything else SEEMED at the time to be political suicide. To be permanently be branded as "soft on terror" or "weak on defense" or whatever the MSM decided to call it. It had nothing to do with information or whether they "trusted" Bush.

Molly was indeed spot on. I submit as evidence:

Nov. 19, 2002: “The greatest risk for us in invading Iraq is probably not war itself, so much as: What happens after we win? ... There is a batty degree of triumphalism loose in this country right now.�

Jan. 16, 2003: “I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 percent Kurd, 20 percent Sunni and 60 percent Shiite. Can you say, ‘Horrible three-way civil war?’ �

July 14, 2003: “I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I’d rather not see my prediction come true and I don’t think we have much time left to avert it. That the occupation is not going well is apparent to everyone but Donald Rumsfeld. ... We don’t need people with credentials as right-wing ideologues and corporate privatizers — we need people who know how to fix water and power plants.�

Oct. 7, 2003: “Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire. ...

“I’ve got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war, and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I’ve had a bet out that I hoped I’d lose.�

Hat tip to " rel="nofollow">Paul Krugman who did the legwork to dig up the quotes for his column today.

Lets try that link again.

The truth is, few candidates who expect to win, will run on a platform of peace at any price. No woman candidate would dare to come across as a pacifist. The US is still an aggressive nation. I would like to see a less hawkish viewpoint articulated, but it's not gonna happen except from guys like Kucinich. I like him, but he'll be last at the finish.
One has to go by subtler messages from the candidates: what are their priorities? their views on foreign policy? their view on Palestinian statehood? Are they talking a positive domestic agenda or a jingoistic one? During the campaign season, there won't be a single one who would say that we spend to much on the military and the defense budget should be reduced.

I suppose I should thank Clinton and Edwards for making my job of choosing a candidate to support from the crowded Democratic field a little bit easier...

On 10/27/03, Dubya said "the ambassador and the general were briefing me on the-- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

Freudian slip?

Today's National Intelligence Estimate hurts the administration's quest for success. It actually challenges their stands. Chaos, emergence of a Shia assertion of strength, anarchy.

I feel badly about Molly Ivins too--she really watched the Bushies from her perch in Texas.
She will be missed. What wonderful opinion and commentary.

It's damaged goods, and no one in the foreseeable future is going to use it as an excuse for military action.

Kevin, are you fucking serious? What makes you think that's the case? I would not be shocked at all to see exactly that rationale trotted out before the decade is done. These people do not learn. They're broken robots.

antiphone: "We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.

One thing about Bush, the threat of military force is not empty. It may look to Americans like the deployment in Iraq is insufficiently successful, but the government of Iran is bound to notice that the government of Iraq was removed. I feel like I am watching a train wreck about to occur, and the people who could avert it, i.e. the Democrats in Congress, are asleep at the switch, with nightmares about the last invasion.

I don't understand why following ordinary international law isn't good enough for American intellectuals.

Anyway, principles aside, my problem with attacking Iran is that Iran will counter-attack and then we'll have a war and lose the war.

No woman candidate would dare to come across as a pacifist. The US is still an aggressive nation. I would like to see a less hawkish viewpoint articulated, but it's not gonna happen except from guys like Kucinich. I like him, but he'll be last at the finish.

So, it’s either vote for Kucinich and loose, or pretend Hillary Clinton isn’t Lieberman in a pantsuit?

Maybe it’s time for us to realize that voters can lead by making our voices heard, in a democracy the responsibility for the governments conduct does eventually belong to the electorate.

Right on how Kevin says Bush is trying to midwife democracy there.
An absolutely criminal endeavor using coercion in the ultimate effort to, what?---- get the oil?
To be known as the war president?
He seemed obsessed with the idea of being commander in chief when interviewed back in the late 90's.
To plunder and destroy nations?
To strengthen private industry cronies without review or accountability?

One thing about Bush, the threat of military force is not empty.

Well, the kind of threat necessary to get anyone to change behavior: that is, one that is clear that the decision to behave or not behave in the requested way will influence, in the direction intimated, the decision whether or not to use force, is indeed absent when Bush is making the threat.

It may look to Americans like the deployment in Iraq is insufficiently successful,

In much the same sense that it may seem to a polar bear that Death Valley in the summer is insufficiently cool, yes...

but the government of Iran is bound to notice that the government of Iraq was removed.

And is likewise bound to notice that the government of Iraq was removed despite the fact that the justifications the Bush Administration cited in going to war were false, and that the administration had every reason to believe that they were false when they made them.

Producing little incentive for them to adjust their behavior—except to prepare for inevitable war—in response to any threats from Bush now.

Feingold.

Clinton's answer, at the very best, means she knows little about our intelligence apparatus, the craft of intel gathering and how to interpret the final product. Not really a plus when you are the decider. It also means the Senator was to lazy or walk down the hall to speak with Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

[Democracy promotion is] damaged goods, and no one in the foreseeable future is going to use it as an excuse for military action.

Hell, it wasn't even the excuse for the Iraq war that we gave before the fact. Only after excuse 1 (WMD) became inoperative did BushCo make the switcheroo to democracy whiskey sexy.

cmdicely, I think you mistook my meaning.

Democrats need to get in front of Bush and prevent him from attacking Iran. Hillary Clinton's quote (hat tip to antiphone) seems to support Bush's war-posturing. The emphasis is on diplomacy, but the language is inclusive, and Bush doesn't deal with emphasis; with him, direct unambiguous orders are necessary. Very soon, Congress needs to pass a binding resolution prohibiting combat operations in Iran or Iranian airspace, permitting only defensive actions against direct attacks on American naval vessels.

Ah, Kevin.

Talk about viewing the situation with blinders. You say imposing democracy is an impossible task. THat's because your a socialist, paternalistic bootlicker.

Have we been paying attention, Kevin. Remember all those beaming Iraqi citizens, exercising their freedoms, and pumping their purple fingers in the air? It's called democracy at work. The overwhelming bulk of Iraquis want this to work, it's only a few dead enders who don't. I mean, these terrorists have to kill innocent civilians to jump start their Islamic coup. How bankrupt is that? And you tacitly endorse that?

In 1989, we saw what happens when dictators topple. It's a little messier in this case, but thats only because this thing is graphted onto the War on Terror. We're killing two birds with one stone. You're kids will thank W.

Lesson isn't that it's impossible to topple, to occupy, to impose democracy. The lesson is that it's difficult as hell and should be planned and approached as such. The lesson is also that it's easier to let somebody else do it, and stick to doing this shit only when we got some real threat that we've had to destroy.

By the way, noted:

Hillary was for the war before she was against it.

War-mongerers...how wasteful.

Back in 2004, the Center for American Progress issued Bush's report card. I would love to see one for 2006. Anyone?

The numbers below were for 2000-2004:

Monthly trade deficit: +75%
Annual trade deficit: +53%
Americans filing for bankruptcy: +33%
Annual increase in prescription drug prices (from 4.1- 6.8%) +68%
Home Mortgage Borrowing +100%
Total outstanding consumer debt +28%
Household debt as percentage of assets: 20%
Household debt as percentage of GDP: +21%
Poverty rate: +11%
Real value of the minimum wage: -7%
Federal debt: +39%
Dollar versus Euro: -30%
Dollar versus Yen: -11%
Median house income: -4%
Number of Americans without health insurance +18%
Average cost of 4-year public college: +24%

"The lesson I've taken, by contrast, is that toppling Middle Eastern governments, occupying their societies, and trying to impose pluralistic democracy is an almost impossible endeavor, one with far more potential for catastrophe than completion. "

They did not vote on that whole package, though, way back when. It was WMD, remember?

Beltway politicos still parroting "bad intelligence", "spreading democracy", "WMDs" and "Iranian nuclear weapons" for the reason for these wars. Man, people know it's for oil, resources and Israel. When is this shit going to told for real? Fuckin' A, time to get away from this Empire shit!

Consider:

Here are some more up-to-date stats. Not exactly an update of what you posted, but similar enough for some comparisons.

The Union's true state

ON INCOMES:

--Median household income in 2000: $47,599
--Median household income in 2005: $46,326
(US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005)

--Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $10,712
--Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours
(Forbes Magazine. "What the Boss Makes." April 20, 2006)

--Federal minimum wage in 2000: $5.15/hr
--Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr
--Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562

ON ENERGY PRICES:

--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.15 per gallon
--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.42 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 4, 2007)

--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.31 per gallon
(with two separate spikes to at or near $3.00/gallon - once after Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005 and in the summer of 2006)
--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.38 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 5, 2007)

--Exxon Mobil profits in 2000: $7.9 billion
--Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion
(CNNMoney.com, accessed Jan. 19, 2007)

ON CLIMATE CHANGE:

--Year Bush said Kyoto Protocol's emission targets were not based upon science: 2000
--Decrease in NASA budget for Earth observation since 2000: 30 percent
--Year with highest average U.S. temperature ever recorded: 2006
(The White House, June 11, 2001; New York Times, Jan. 21, 2006; National Climate Data Center. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Jan. 9, 2007)

ON EDUCATION:

--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2000: $9,958
--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2006: $12,796
(Costs include tuition, fees, room & board. MSN Money 2000/Associated Press. Jan. 14, 2005. College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2007)

ON RETIREMENT SECURITY:

--Workers without retirement plans at work in the private sector 2006: 80 percent
--Baby boom Americans approaching retirement: 76 million
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2006; The Seattle Times. Jan. 22, 2005)

ON HEALTH CARE COSTS:

--Americans without health insurance, 2000: 38.2 million
--Americans without health insurance, 2005: 46.6 million
(US Census Bureau, Sept. 2001; US Census Bureau, Aug. 2006)

--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2000: $135
--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2006: $248
--Personal bankruptcies due to medical bills: 55 percent
(The Kaiser Family Foundation, Sept. 26, 2006; Health Affairs Health Policy Journal, Feb. 2, 2005)

ON THE IRAQ WAR:

--Number of US troops killed in Iraq prior to the "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003: 139
--Number of US troops killed in Iraq as of Jan. 22, 2007: 3,056
--Number of Iraqi civilians killed in 2006, according to the United Nations: 34,452
(iCasualties.org, Jan. 22, 2007; U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, Jan. 16, 2006)

--Number of US troops wounded in Iraq prior to the "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003: 542
--Number of US troops wounded in Iraq as of January 10, 2007: 22,834
(iCasualties.org. Jan. 10, 2007)

--Total US military expenditures (including in Iraq and Afghanistan) in 2006: $522 billion
--Total military expenditures of the 10 next top spenders combined: $386 billion
(Includes China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Italy, and Australia. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Feb. 16, 2006.)

--U.S. Federal Discretionary Budget spent on Military not including Iraq, in 2006: 48.7 percent
--Amount spent on Education: 6.7 percent
(White House Office of Management and Budget, Feb. 6, 2006)

ON DEBTS AND DEFICITS:

--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2000: $33.8 billion
--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)

--U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2000: $435.4 billion
--U.S. Current Account Deficit, FY 2006: $900 billion
(Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2001; Economic Policy Institute. March 14, 2006)

--Loss of value of U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, Jan. 24, 2000 to Jan. 23, 2006: 23 percent
(X-rate.com, accessed Jan. 23, 2006)

--US Budget Deficit in FY 2000: $230 billion surplus
--US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit
(White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2007; White House Office of Management and Budget. Table S-1. 2006 budget totals)

--US National Debt in FY 2000: $5.7 trillion
--US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion
(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)

egbert-
You're one to talk about blinders. It's like you slept through every development since 2003. You know, things like Fallujah, Najaf, Abu Ghraib, the bombing of the mosque, the thousands of people dying each week... I mean seriously, fella, you're a bit behind the times.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the fall of Soviet Power in Eastern Europe did not require a full-scale invasion to achieve. Quite the opposite. All that was necessary was for the Soviets to withdraw. And no, it didn't require our invading Russia to get them to leave Eastern Europe. All that needed was opening up diplomatic channels and letting a little bit of American rock and roll pierce the B.S. of the Soviet system.

It's our culture that does the heavy lifting for us. It's our culture, not our Democratic values that the terrorists hate. You folks are making it harder to sell our country. Who do you think that benefits.

Kevin writes: Bottom line: forget about democracy-building arguments for now.

Come on man, come on! Ezra Klein is completely lost because he has bought into Republican talking points that have sought to change history, change reality.

The Iraq war was sold 95% on the premise that Iraq was a “nuclear� threat. Remember the aluminum tubes?! Remember the uranium from Niger?! Remember the mushroom clouds?!!!

The democracy thing was way down the concern list. That was not why we invaded. Gee fucking whiz.

And, my friend, good intelligence always has been and always will be critical!

Fabulous job, Wolfdaughter.
Very telling. Good of you to include Iraq particulars.
The charade has worn very thin. It is a melt down. The reality shows the truth.
That summary had to take some time, Wolfdaughter. You are praised.

As best I can decipher Kevin Drum's argument, he is saying that it would have been very, very wrong to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11 to overthrow the Taliban and shut down the Al Quaeda training camps. As one who works in a tall New York City landmark building, I hope very much that the terrorists kill Kevin Drum in their next attack and not me--I hope this almost as much as he hopes that they kill me and not him--but I fear that I will go first.

I suppose I should thank Clinton and Edwards for making my job of choosing a candidate to support from the crowded Democratic field a little bit easier...

I can understand that statement, but remember that keeping the verbal heat on Iran in relation to nuclear weapons is not the same thing as invading or bombing. Neither Clinton nor Edwards or any other Democrat would have invaded Iraq.

All verbal statements, across the board, no exceptions at all that I know of, warned Iraq that nuclear weapons would not be tolerated. But I think only GWB and his gang would have invaded. Iran too is not a threat. I don’t think any Democrat will invade or bomb. But they will verbally consistently warn Iran.

Who is saying anything different?

Ezra Klein listens to Hillary Clinton explaining that she wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war if she'd known how bad the intelligence was (not to mention how big a doofus George Bush was) -- and comes away unsatisfied.

Not knowing how big a doofus George Bush was is reason alone not to vote for Hillary.

I didn't get to see any classified information, yet what I did see (news in alternative media, UN weapons' inspectors' interviews, reports, broadcasting from international news organizations, etc.) led me to distrust the Bush-Cheney basis for a preemptive war. I was hardly alone in that distrust. While mainstream media in the U.S. was beating the drums for war, hiring retired generals, preparing martial art and music, alternative media provided forums for those who had been in positions to know the truth of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities.

I find it impossible to believe that Hillary Clinton wasn't aware of the facts before she voted yes to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq. As a former president, her husband gets daily classified intelligence briefings. Would Bill Clinton have let his wife cast the most important vote of her short Senate life without the benefit of that intelligence and his counsel?

It strains credulity to believe that the Clintons didn't know the facts before she voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.

I just wrote about this, and more, on my blog. Very few people have caught some of the bombshells in journalists' books about the Bush administration of the last couple of years. For example, Bob Woodward exposes the enabling by Democrats and none of it was discussed during his book tour for "State of Denial."

Bush and Cheney certainly made getting to the facts difficult and confusing, but not impossible. But here's one of the bombshells: The same classified intelligence that Bush saw was made available to all members of Congress, according to Bob Woodward in "State of Denial."

Very few members of Congress took advantage of that opportunity, according to Woodward, and actually went to the secured room where the intelligence was available. I'd like to know which ones did and which ones didn't. I'd like to know why they didn't and why they haven't been confronted in their home districts with that revelation.

Democrats have failed the American people almost as badly as Bush-Cheney and the GOP have. As the minority party, their power was in asking questions that would have framed Bush's true intentions for all to see. Democrats should have been asking the questions that the media weren't.

And now, on the eve of yet another "war of choice" (Woodward documents Bush's intentions in 2003 to invade Iran), the majority party Democrats have fallen silent again.

Those who have followed alternative media are about three years ahead of where mainstream media is today. We knew that once Bush started the war, WMD wouldn't be found and a civil war was inevitable. We knew that as the war got out of control, all calls for reevaluating U.S. involvement in Iraq would be met with "Maybe we shouldn't have gone in, but we're there now." We knew that Bush wouldn't be pulling American troops out of Iraq, that he never had any intention of leaving Iraq as a sovereign nation (as evidenced by the U.S. dictating to the Iraqis the terms of their constitution and the building of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq), and that his plan is to expand the war to Iran and Syria.

Why weren't Democrats asking questions and why aren't they now?

John Edwards is the George Romney of 2008.

Democrats have failed the American people almost as badly as Bush-Cheney and the GOP have.

That’s a stupid thing to say. Democrats did not, and would not have, invaded Iraq.

You are re-writing history. A Republican talking point is that a vote for the so-called “war resolution� was a “vote for war�. That’s bull.

The vote was for a resolution to authorize the President to use force if necessary, a means of putting pressure on Saddam. It was the sort of resolution that no President has ever been denied, so that he could negotiate from a strong position.

Bush explicitly agreed (promised) to go to seek United Nations approval via a U.N. resolution in exchange for Democrats voting in favor of the U.S. Congressional resolution, something he had previously refused to do. This was very important.

Unfortunately, Bush ended up ignoring the UN process after all, falsely claiming that the UN resolution that was passed was the only one he needed to justify invasion.

Now, you can say that they should have know that Bush was a treacherous SOB, but you can’t make the claims you are making. The Democrats did not vote for war and they did not favor invasion. Read the resolution. Read the speeches that Democrats made (e.g., Kerry) explaining what the resolution meant. Don’t throw Republican talking points at me.

Remembering.

The Senate vote of Jan. 12, 1991, authorizing force against Iraq was 52-47, with Democrats mostly in opposition.

The Senate vote of Oct. 11, 2002, authorizing force against Iraq was 77-23, with the opposition again mostly Democrats, but in far fewer numbers.

Why the narrow approval the first time around and the substantial approval the second time?

A good many reasons, of course, but the one that stands out, the reason that is critical, has to be 9/11 for it was 9/11 that changed the dynamic in the nation to the extent that even skeptical senators became reluctant to come out in opposition.

As far as the argument that senators should have known better because they had just as good intelligence as did the White House, I wonder. Apparently Colin Powell didn't know any better when he argued the case before the United Nations with the same intelligence as did the White House.

My own personal feeling is that had 9/11 not occurred, there would have been no authorization. Or if there were an authorization, the vote would have been much closer and Democrats would have fought much harder, perhaps even joined by a few Republicans.

Having said this, I do think that a shrine should be dedicated to the Brave 23 who by standing against the tide risked all. Those few are the Spartans of our day, and even though they failed to stem this particular onslaught, their effort truly was a noble one and in the highest tradition of our democracy.

Today, I think Mrs. Clinton has it right. The past is the past and what remains today is to set things right. She pledges to bring the troops home as a first priority should she be elected president and should all else fail to get them home by that time. That, it seems to me, is the best that can be hoped for in what has been become the most catastrophic foreign adventure in the history of America.

Before you all go dumping on Edwards, you should read this interview Ezra Klein conducted with Edwards today.

Don’t throw Republican talking points at me.

As one of the most liberal Democrats you're ever likely to encounter, I'd hardly be spouting Republican talking points.

A Republican talking point is that a vote for the so-called “war resolution� was a “vote for war�. That’s bull.

And yet that is precisely what Democrats signed on to when they voted yes on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). Full Text of Joint Resolution.

Here are the relevant portions (SEC. 3. is most relevant):

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) > Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

If, as you contend:

"Democrats did not vote for war and they did not favor invasion," and "the vote was for a resolution to authorize the President to use force if necessary, a means of putting pressure on Saddam...It was the sort of resolution that no President has ever been denied, so that he could negotiate from a strong position"

"Bush explicitly agreed (promised) to go to seek United Nations approval via a U.N. resolution in exchange for Democrats voting in favor of the U.S. Congressional resolution, something he had previously refused to do...This was very important...Unfortunately, Bush ended up ignoring the UN process after all, falsely claiming that the UN resolution that was passed was the only one he needed to justify invasion,"

If what you believe was true, on March 17, 2003 when Bush ended all diplomatic efforts and told the UN and the IAEA to withdraw all weapons inspectors, the Democrats should have said, "WHOA! Time out, dude. That wasn't the agreement."

When Bush announced that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave Iraq or the U.S. will initiate preemptive military strikes against Iraq, the Democrats could have and should have (if what you believe is true) balked. But they didn't.

What John Kerry or any member of Congress says about why they vote the way they do means nothing. It's their vote that counts. If John Kerry had voted no and on the floor of the Senate he announced that his vote was really a yes, would that have changed the total? If you believe what you're saying, then you agree with Bush, that his signing statements carry the force of law and he can decide to abide by what he's signing, not abide, or even change the law that he's signing to say something else with his signing statement.

Incidentally, Bush has never complied with SECTION 4 of this resolution and Democrats have never raised the issue. If you have read any of the books published these last few years ("Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, the Woodward Books, "Imperial Life in Emerald City," "State of War," "The One Percent Doctrine," "Cobra II," "Assassin's Gate," etc.), every last one of them reflects the same truth: What went wrong was known very early on, and the Bush administration was well aware and refused to do anything differently. Had Democrats, even as the minority party, beat the drum on this one point (the Administration's failure to produce reports every 60 days), Americans would have known much earlier about Bush's (and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's) incompetence.

That's just one point - there are many many more.

I repeat, Democrats have failed the American people almost as badly as Bush-Cheney and the GOP have.

Edwards and Clinton say one thing to Israeli audiences and another to American non-Jewish audiences. I don't think that any of our Senators have the cojones (I include Obama) to say, if I am President we will only attack a country that attacks us. We won't disarm but we know that attacking and invading other countries kills innocent people and does not work".

Maybe Clark would have the cojones to say that and practice what he preached. I don't see how he can raise the money to compete with our Senator weathervanes (Edwards is a Senator weathervane) in the early big primaries. The others keep saying, "We must keep all options on the table" and telling Jewish groups that we can't accept a nuclear Iran. I have to hope that none of the weathervanes gets a majority.

One really tricky thing - we might want a president who will show good foreign policy judgment (no wars against Iran to stop proliferation), but we might want that same president to be one that foreign leaders will think MIGHT show poor foreign policy judgment (wars against Iran to stop proliferation).

There just aren't many people left who think (or pretend to think) that the United States Army can make democracy bloom in the Middle East. We've won that argument for now.

No, we haven't. We didn't win the argument because there was no argument: we were roundly ignored; nobody listened to us. They simply saw that this particular invasion didn't work, and they came to their conclusions all by themselves.

They're not listening to us now, either. And they'll continue not listening to us. If you think the left (or 'we') has any influence at all on what these people are up to, you're dreaming.

we were roundly ignored; nobody listened to us

Very true. And not surprising, since there are no mass media that effectively present liberal positions -- with the exception of Lehrer and Comedy Channel, whose content, however, is intelligible only to the liberal choir.

This is not necessarily a sinister plot; warmongering and WMD threats are much better for ratings than diplomacy, negotiations, and treaties. And media companies are businesses.

Hey Maeven where have you been. I got many scars arguing similar positions about Democratic politicians in recent threads.

But I see that cmdicely has now wised up at least about Hillary and Edwards. Though Obama's war drums were much louder in the quotes posted earlier. And even Nancy Pelosi sounded very much like Edwards when she spoke to the AIPAC.

One, Bushy didn't invade Iraq to plant democracy - democracy was just the fall back position they got stuck with when things didn't go as planned. So why the hell are you talking about who may or may not support going to war to plant democracy? Two, only a fool would take military action off the table regarding Iran - rhetoric does not equal intent - so why would you ask Hillary to commit to what amounts to a tactical blunder in order to take her seriously as a presidential candidate? That's idiotic. No wonder no one trusts liberals re foreign policy.

No wonder no one trusts liberals re foreign policy.

It's amazing that anyone can say this after six years of Bush's presidency. What kind of Republican foreign-policy blunder would it take to convince some people that it's the Republicans who can't be trusted?

Maven,

Did you bother to read the text you quoted from the resolution? It says exactly what I said it says. From the get-go, it states the President is expected to:

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The resolution goes on to say that the President must:

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...

Your really need to show me where the resolution says that they were voting in favor of war.

Want to tell me that they were foolish to trust Bush to actually honor the resolution? Fine by me, you can make an argument there. You can disrespect all those who voted for the resolution and never support them in any way, I won’t try to tell you what to do.

But the resolution was not a vote for war. The text says so. It was an authorization of force, if necessary, that required the President to exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful methods of enforcement of Security Council resolutions, i.e., the President was expected to utilize the UN Security Council and abide by the UN resolution process.

When I say required , I mean what it would take for the President to honor the Resolution, not that he was required “by law�, because the Resolution did not carry the force of law.

ole jim, that would be in Section 3:

(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...

It's true that they asked him to submit a determination that it was in fact necessary. I have looked for this determination but have not been able to find it. (It is not among many presidential determinations listed on the White House website for that period). It would be interesting to locate it -- or find out if there wasn't one. It seems to me that Congress should scrutinize that determination, if it exists, or punish Bush if it does not. A good
place to start for impeachment.

Hey Maeven where have you been. I got many scars arguing similar positions about Democratic politicians in recent threads.

JS: I’m curious. So, for the second time on this thread I will ask who (office-holding politicians please) is saying anything different about Iran and it’s nuclear weapons potential. All statements I’ve seen have been that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapon cabability.

They may be out there, but I haven’t heard them.

ole jim, I understand what you are saying to be that Democrats threaten war on Iran (by saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable) but will never actually fight a war. If so, that's problematic. At a minimum, the neocons can then easily say (as they do) that what THEY do (ie fight wars) is what the Democrats have been talking about too.

The "scars" are from a longer discussion on this in a recent thread, too long to reproduce here -- did you read it? There was a quote from Obama that seemed to be saying that bombing Iran was unavoidable.

By the way ole jim, what is your position on Iran getting nuclear weapons. Why is it acceptable for Pakistan (and, it seems, North Korea) but not for Iran. And if you say "unacceptable" and Iran does not blink (as Obama put it) and you are in power -- what do you do?

The President is authorized..

JS: this is tedious. What didn’t you include enough of the quote (as I did above) to include what he was authorized to use force for? Doesn’t say to invade Iraq, does it? Says to defend the United States, doesn’t it? Says to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. Then it goes on to list things the President “shall do� prior to the exercise of force.

It was Bush and Republican enablers that abused this language, did not abide by this language, that double-crossed the American people. Democrats were not wanting to invade Iraq, the wanted to continue the UN process that had worked, and was working. Bush and the Republicans rushed into war. Nobody could slow him down.

You can argue that everybody should have known (I’ve argued such) that he could not be trusted period, with any kind of authorization.

But the resolution that passed was not a vote to go to war. The Resolution language itself say so. Neither was the UN resolution a vote to go to war as Bush claimed, contrary to other members of the Security Council. It required another vote on another resolution. Bush ignored that.

No, did not read about the "scars".

On Iran, they are not currently a threat, nuclear or otherwise, but I agree that official statments by our politicians should warn that we won't allow it, which really means that we will stop them if we can while we try to convince them that Iran itself will be much better off without them.

There is currently no need to explicitly threaten invasion or even bombing. Of course, we can come up with scenarios that could require either, but why go out on a limb over something that does not appear likely in the near future.

There is no need to make concrete statements now about whether or not you would bomb or invade. We could come up with scenarios where we would bomb England. What are the chances? .0000001 percent? Hopefully, less than that.

The problem language was "as he determines to be necessary". They did not make the use of force contingent on further congressional authorization on the basis of evidence. But they did ask for that determination, and I think that's the crux of the matter. If it can be shown to be insufficient or factually incorrect -- or non-existent -- then I think Congress can fight back now. But "as he determines to be necessary" was too strong.

And as proof that the AUMF was too strong, consider those who voted against it:

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Russ Feingold (D-WI)
* Bob Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

There is currently no need to explicitly threaten invasion or even bombing.

Oh I agree. No need as far as the international situation goes. But the need comes from political realities and campaign finance here at home. pretty much Wes Clark's point. Read this article, if you haven't already, for further explanation.

let's try that link again.

I have a suggestion for a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign slogan:

"Replace a Mis-Administration with a Ms. Administration!"

tyrannogenius

PS: JS, are you JS of voicesofreason.info? That is my favorite blog.

No sorry -- but I will check that out since you recommend it.

I'm of the opinion there is a basic logical misconception which is at the heart of monotheism. The assumption is that the spiritual absolute is a moral and intellectual apex from which humanity has fallen. In fact, the absolute is the logical basis, so the spiritual absolute would be the basis of being. That raw elemental state from which we rose. Knowledge is simply the top down organizational structure by which that bottom up emergent phenomena incorporates complexity. Good and bad is the binary code of biological computation, not a dual between the forces of light and darkness. So when the fundamentalists tell us this complex house of cards is confusing and evil and insist on tearing it down, we don't all float off to heaven, but get sucked into the vortex.

I have held my powder dry, lo, these many months.
Now, fellow procrastinators take heed and lend me your ear.

The war on Iran train has already left--HRC and John Edwards were seen cheering as the train left the station.

Dick Cheney, he of the 1% of evidence rule, has all the evidence he needs that Iran is going to nuke Irsael and the USA in the next few months. So gear up for another preemptive attack.

Permit me an aside for the moment: Why does the beauty always wind up with the beast; why does Donald Trump always marry Ivanka, and, why, finally, does the world's Christian superpower enjoy invading Muslim Afghanistan, Muslim Iraq and now Muslin Iran???

Supremacy, supremacy, supremacy. Trump likes to be on top. So do the people who are running this county to the ground. The more the Arabs/Muslims/Persians fight and kill one another the better for the ole USA.

So ,another invasion, no bigee. It just wipes out another competitor.

The fly, alas, is we want their blood, er, oil. How to kill them off and get their oil, there’s the rub..

Many thanks, Wolfdaughter, for the well-organized stats. I saved them into Word for future reference.

These stats should be required reading by the Saturday morning "business block" blowhards on Fox News, who just this morning were bragging to one another about how well off Americans are today as compared with a few years ago.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

"Lesson isn't that it's impossible to topple, to occupy, to impose democracy. The lesson is that it's difficult as hell and should be planned and approached as such. The lesson is also that it's easier to let somebody else do it, and stick to doing this shit only when we got some real threat that we've had to destroy."
_______________________

This is probably more correct than Mr. Drum's rather misleading statement that "Trying to impose pluralistic democracy at the point of a gun is an almost impossible endeavor." The guns of the American Army haven't been pointed at those creating the government in Iraq, but, rather, toward their enemies, who need neither numbers nor ballots to get their way. We didn't force people to vote at gunpoint, nor can we simply disregard the resulting government. Guns have often been needed when a democratic form replaces a tyrant - but to defend the nascent government, not to impose it. And (though I trust Drum doesn't mean it this way) we can always count on our enemies to use the phrase "at the point of a gun" to bolster the claim that the defended government is somehow illegitimate.

Such it has always been, save in those rare circumstances where there is no anti-democratic internal opposition or nearby external enemy.

The distinction is important. Sometime, sooner or later, a successor Administration will discover a need to act (or possibly intervene) against an autocratic government, for whatever reason. This need might, or might not, be encouraged by a popular clamor for action from the Left, the Right, or both. Wherever that need and whatever the Cause, we can be certain that our enemies will constantly hammer on the point that our use of force is illegitimate, illegal, and, by the way, doomed to fail. We should not give those future opponents any head start by assuming that any such task will always be nearly impossible. If we do, we are half-defeated before we start. That might be of comfort to our enemies and to those who think we are the source of evil in the world, but it will not encourage those who fight against tyranny and have hope that we might help them.