IT WAS A VOTE TO GIVE BUSH DECISION MAKING POWERS CONCERNING WAR

I am completely sick and fucking tired of repeating this FACT over and over and over again to right wingers AND left wingers alike.

The IWR, the "He/She voted for war" document DID NOTHING MORE THAN SAY "HEY BUSH YOU HAVE MY CONFIDENCE THAT IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE US TO WAR I TRUST IT'S BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT'S THE ONLY WAY"

Now then does this excuse those who voted for it? of course not. It's like handing the keys to your to a drunken idiot and trusting him not to crash your car-you should know better.

But there is still a big difference between trusting someone not to screw things up and then actually BEING the person who actually did the screwing up.


HOWEVER the media and everyone else makes it sound like a vote for the IWR was a direct "We love blood and guts we want war" statement which in fact it was NOT, and it IS in fact a BIG difference because this must be laid primarily into the laps of those truly responsible for the Iraq mess-it's not the Democratic congressional leaders who trusted Bush not to fuck things up-it's those who directly fucked things up, those who completely violated the IWR however crooked it was, it still had provisions ALL OF WHICH Bush and his minions COMPLETELY ignored.

Therefore once again slap the Democrats for doing nothing more than being naive for trusting this drunken idiot to lie and break the provisions of which was voted on, HOWEVER the notion that they share in just as much blame as Bush is complete and utter bullshit.



I fucking give up I am surrounded by stupids everywhere I go who parrot this bullshit left and right, I'm so tired of it I swear I would rather be arguing over who should be screwing who in some day time soap opera.

*And for those of you wondering I have no clue why no Democrats other than so far John Kerry and John Edwards (lemme know if I am missing any) that have come out and said what I just said only with less of an "outrage" effect.

:kick:

Sorry you are surrounded by "stupids everywhere", but sadly, those who voted for the IWR when there was absolutely no history of active congressional oversight of the Bush administration were foolish. And those who became advocates of the administration's positions were a step beyond.

blah blah you know it's bullshit yes, however you see the document which you are voting on which has provisions such as "War only as a last resort and we will ensure that if it comes to this we will build a true coalition ect ect"

Kerry said it best on his floor speech when he said "This is not an invitation for the president to run roughshod over Iraq"


They were not advocates an advocate is somebody who is supports something who is behind something, those like Kerry with their votes said "We trust you to follow this provision we don't support war unless it absolutely necessary-i.e. Saddam is mounting a nuclear strike as we speak"

Again it was stupid to vote for it I am not arguing that, but what I am arguing is this notion this media fixation that those who voted for it are at just as much fault as Bushco.

We all understand what an advocate is. Granted Kerry defined his support in the quotes you provided. What I am talking about is when politicians of both parties (thankfully, more Rs than Ds) parroted the administration's assertions as if they were their own.

The media should seek out those who were advocates and ask them WHY they were advocates. They owe the public an answer, even if it is just that they had to look "tough" prior to the mid-term election or that they could not resist getting their mug on TV or voice on the radio.

That Bush broke every promise he made ON THE RECORD goes well beyond what people should have been able to expect from a President.

it wasn't obvious....

this administration does, says, proposes is a scam slipped in through the side door, through subtle use of language. Dems shouldn't have fallen for it, but they did.

The fact is that you are arguing the truth, but the truth is a subtle point and most people are not strong on picking up on subtleties. That is part of what the administration uses to get the scams to work.

Others like Wellstone, Kennedy, Byrd and about 100 others took a passionate stand AGAINST the IWR.
The principled stand AGAINST the IRW taken by Democrats with integrity shouldn't be dishonored by those Democrats who NOW claim they didn't really support the War (those pesky polls you know).

can be said to have not supported the war. I don't know how many there were. I know Kerry was one.

Thank you for saying it. Thank you, thank you. I made the entire website http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com in part because people kept repeating this nonsense during the campaign and I couldn't take it anymore. I can't believe how happily Democrats line up to repeat Republican spin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x574

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.

Bushco has completely dismissed the provisions-and of course this IWR is bullshit and illegal under international law I believe, however at the same time who wouldn't authorize to go to the mattresses if it meant that it's the only way to save yourselves or save the country? I doubt even the biggest pacifist would be anti-war if some tyrant was bombing the hell out of his/her home.

That's the point though the war was not a last resort was not conducted strategically with a true coalition as the IWR outlined therefore Bushco betrayed the IWR completely resulting in what should be a bunch of had Democrats who voted for it.

"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 . . ."

The Act was passed October 10, 2002. I'm sure we all remember seeing the no fewer than 12 to date lawfully required reports from the president, right? I remember seeing that section in the original law, and thinking to myself that there was no way that was ever going to be enforced. It was just window dressing as a sop to folks who could then go back to their justifiably angry constituents and say, "See? We're going to get regular reports! We'll be right on top of this. The President's handcuffed and can't make a move with further congressional authorization."

Yeah, bull.

...of balsa wood planes carrying dirty bombs.:eyes:

Sounded ludicrous then, and even moreso now.

Peace.:patriot:

"...You trusted us."


Well put. :thumbsup:

... those people who voted for the IWR enabled Bush in an action he'd been telegraphing for months.

One must be willing to acknowledge the culpability of those who voted for the IWR--and the suggestion that several hundred of the nation's top leaders were merely naive gives me the creeping shudders.

Now, logically, one is obligated to look at the inverse. Had Congress not voted for the IWR, Bush would have owned this war all by himself had he ignored the dictates of Congress. One has to look at the alternative and its effects, as well, not just what was done.

Nope, Democrats got herded like sheep by the administration on this one, in some measure because they were scared of being pegged as anti-war three weeks before the elections. They all knew what the `pugs were doing by scheduling the vote when they did. And enough of them caved to make it a bipartisan fuck-up. If the Dems had banded together and voted against this resolution, they wouldn't have to apologize today--and the `pugs, all by their lonesomes, would be paying the price.

Let's remember that the actual title of the IWR is: "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." Now, what does that say? That everyone who voted for it authorized the use of force in whatever way Bush saw fit. Everyone who voted for it decided to give the drunken frat boy the car keys. Period.

You can make some arm-flailing semantic argument that it was all Bush's fault, but that ignores the alternative--not voting for such a resolution.

Both of my senators were wise enough to vote against it.

the problem is there would likely be war - Bush had already claimed he did not need either a new UN resolution or a Congressional resolution. He claimed the Terror one was broad enough.

At least some who voted for the resolution thought the likelihood of war was high either way and hoped to channel Bush to the UN to build a coalition and to force him to allow inspections (which Cheney was against). They saw it as a possible way to stall war and to possibly avoid it. It clearly didn't work that way.

But the reason was Bush. He could have declared victory in 2003 - he got invasive inspections, Iraq destroyed missiles and he insured Iraq was clean which was the goal since 1991. He could even have had the high moral ground of saying that, unlike Clinton, he cleaned things up and ended sanctions that were killing people. Instead in volation of his own promises he attacked.

... you're for illegal war or against it. There was nothing in the resolution requiring Bush to get a UN resolution for war (which was most unlikely, in any event, which is why that stipulation wasn't in it).

It gave him carte blanche. It handed him his war-making powers. And, if Bush said the so-called "war on terror" gave him the authority, that would have set up a perfect Constitutional case for impeachment.

The simple truth here is that we expect these people to be responsible for their actions, and yet, Democrats who paved the way for those illegal actions should somehow be excused for their actions? That's hypocritical. And that's the fundamental flaw in the OP's argument--it depends upon hypocrisy to validate the actions of Democrats.

Everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, who supported Bush by their vote is complicit, regardless of their reasons for doing so. This vote wasn't symbolic in any way--it was literal--it was Congress permitting war as the President chose. To think of it in any other terms is disingenuous, and, frankly, dishonest. Some may feel deceived today, and excuse their vote on that basis. But, where war is concerned, wouldn't skepticism and common sense cause one to err on the side of least destruction, even if it meant political fallout?

Let's go back to Wayne Morse. Morse and Ernest Gruening of Alaska were the only two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That vote was as equally politically charged as the IWR. Morse's vote effectively ruined his political career, but he was right not to vote for it. Those Democrats who voted for this resolution, by and large, did so because it was the path of least resistance, the politically expedient course, not because it was the right thing to do.

If we excuse Democrats from their cooperation, then we're as blindly partisan as the `pugs, and deserve the opprobrium of the public as much as they do. I'm perfectly willing to accept the admission from someone of either party that they were wrong in voting as they did. It doesn't change the result, though--which is why I invariably say here that words don't count, only votes do.

To assert that because Bush made the decision to invade another country, the responsibility is entirely his is contrary to the facts. Constitutionally, Congress gave its legal authorization to do so. Had it not done so, then Bush's actions would have been entirely his own, and would have been subject to Constitutional remedies, if Congress so desired.

Let's just reiterate. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make war, period. Congress, through its vote on the IWR, delegated that responsibility to Bush. Many Democrats agreed to delegate their responsibility to Bush. They were wrong to do so. They had the option not to delegate that responsibility. They should not now be absolved of that failure of will because they are Democrats.

Cheers.

Got that, everyone, once and for all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5481072&mesg_id=5481072


Peace.

Hello.

I've only belonged to DU for less than a year, and read more than I post, but this one called me out because I've been thinking about this issue for a long time.

You have outlined the legal case in this situation to perfection. And are we really to believe that those who voted for this bill just didn't know what it would lead to, that they were misled, that the information they had to work with was faulty? I think not. I, Jane Q. Citizen, had all the information I needed to know what was going on here, based on the fact that the man in the White House was put there through a judicial coup d'etat.

Given that Mr. Bush, et al. reached the pinnacle of power through very obvious nefarious means (anyone with two neurons firing could surely see that), why would anyone with the power to authorize him to make war assume that he would use such a broad-based authorization with honesty and integrity when the whole foundation of his ascendency to power was based on lies? This whole thing was done like a polite tea party, with everybody being careful not to step on anyone else's toes. The unclothed emperor fable fits this situation to a "t." Try to convince me that anyone voting for that resolution really thought GW would come back asking for further permission! He was already adjusting his codpiece on his flyboy suit, awash in wet dreams of military conquest.

I so long for people with integrity to stop the bullshit and just stand up and tell the truth. Paul Wellstone did that, and we see the result.

So, I often wrestle with whether I, as a citizen of the U.S. of A., have the right to ask my political representatives to put their lives on the line to speak the truth, because that's what it has come down to in America.

Here is my answer to myself: Everyone who attains national political office takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Nowhere does it say that that obligation stops when personal discomfort or even personal risk is involved. My father took his own oath when he put on a uniform and marched all over Europe in WWII to protect what this country then stood for.

I'm sorry, Mr. Kerry, and anyone else who claims they were fed faulty information: "Fool me once...." That's all you get. Too many people have died over the flawed "nose" of too many of our congressional representatives who can't seem to ferret out the truth as well as I, an ordinary citizen, can. They have power and influence to make a difference which I, ordinary citizen, do not have. If they can't stand the heat....


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

voting directly for invasion and voting to grant someone the authority to make the decision if certain conditions were in existence.

I still agree it was stupid to trust Bush in any case, and we all see the results of doing so.

but I think the OP might be upset because republicans are using this against Democrats, trying shuffle blame onto them, implying they approved of preemptive invasion, which is patently untrue. and the corporate media shills just reinforce this mischaracterization.

that being said, I think your point is extremelly valid also, that it was the equivalent of handing car keys to a drunken frat boy. BUT for the drunken frat boy to turn around and blame you completely for handing him the keys when he runs over someone is not acceptable, either. At some point, the drunk has to take responsibility for his own actions, especially if he lied to the keyholder in order to get the keys.

... to withhold the keys, out of simple prudence.

Simple prudence is what we most lack, these days, from Congress as a whole.

Cheers.

could trust that pig nuts. Others like Kerry, stated in his pre-vote speech ad infinitum how he was only doing it if...if...if...if...if...if...if...if..if. And only if...

Bush got that paper in his hands and went yahoo like a kid that was just told spend a whole day picking anything he wants in a Toys R Us.

The Senate gave the President to lock-n-load the gun, but it was the President's sole decision to fire the damn thing - that's why it is called EXECUTivE.

Dumb and evil is another. Unfortunately too many Americans can't tell the difference. Congress believed all the MSM shit about Bush being a straight shooter, an honest sincere guy who will keep us safe. How such a rodent rose to such high esteem in this nation will cause head scratching for generations.

Bush did that.

that didn't pan out either. Bush lied. People died. Dems were stupid. But still, the man who rushed to war was Bush. Making Dems equal partners in the war diminishes his role.

Any politician who supported the war when the weapons inspectors were finding jack shit and saying the info we were giving them was worthless, or the other ratbastards who acted like the inspectors were incompetent because they weren't finding what our "secret" intel was saying, were pandering cowards who have blood on their hands. They should be on trial next to Bush. They are complicit in letting this idiot march our troops of a cliff.

who was raising all holy hell on the 'eve' of the actual war?

it certainly wasn't the people who voted for the IWR

One step removed, but anyone with half a brain knew that with authorization Bush was going to start a war. I don't find your analogy that persuasive. A person giving a drunk person car keys is just as liable as the drunk driver in my book.

and they sat there mute and let him start two wars?
sorry

Why did one equal branch of government cede its powers to the executive?
I call that shirking one's duty.

Big mistake- at least they seem to know it now.

It was a vote to give the President decision making powers. That shit about Kerry voting for the war before he voted against it has always been accurate. Sen. Kerry said he voted to give that as*wipe prez decision making powers, then when he found out he wasnt going to continue U.N. inpections and seeing the build up in Iraq, he voted against those DECISION!!!!!!

A couple of hoohas DID vote for war. Leiberman and Miller, for two. Some other hoohas staked out their anti-war position based on that being a vote for war. I won't name names. And a few other hoohas have sort of slid around on it, namely Hillary and Biden.

But you're right, that's been the biggest obstacle in making a case on this war, either to change course or get out, since it began. The damned vote.

And here's what Bush said himself:

Sept 7, 2002

Its my honor to welcome the Prime Minister back to Camp David. I look forward to spending a good three hours talking to our friend about how to keep the peace.

Sept 10, 2002

“I'll make the case of how I think we ought to proceed, on how we work together to keep the peace.”

Sept 19, 2002

“I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace…If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.”

Sept 23, 2002

“I believe we can achieve peace. Oh, I know the kids hear all the war rhetoric and tough talk, and that's necessary to send a message.”

Sept 27, 2002

“I'm willing to give peace a chance to work… People who are willing to work with us to send a clear message to the world, a unified message, a strong resolution which defines our vision for peace… I want you to know that behind the rhetoric of war is a deep desire for peace.”

Sept 28, 2002

“I want to thank members of both political parties in the Congress for working on a strong statement of resolve that the world will see. Members of both political parties have worked together with the -- with members of my staff, to develop a statement that shows our determination and our desire to keep the peace<”

Oct 7, 2002

“Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice.”

... and still is today. Why do you think tens of millions of people staged unprecedented protests all around the world to try to stop them voting 'yes' on IWR< and then to stop the actual invasion?

In late 2002, it was already quite clear to any sane person that GW Bush & his gang were an irresponsible, corrupt and dishonest gang who were set to invade Iraq, regardless of the rationale or lack thereof.

New Yorkers, who by a margin of 2 to 1 opposed the IWR swamped Clinton's office with calls and faxes begging her to vote no, and yet she chose to ignore the will of her constituents.

I personally believe that every republican AND every democrat who voted yes on the IWR is complicit in the mass murder that is the IRaq war.

There is no excuse for it, including the so-called doctored intel. All the info that the intel was being cherry-picked was out there at the time. We all knew it was a fraud, and it is incumbent on a member of congress to DO THEIR HOMEWORK before voting yes on "authority" for a war that could (and did) cost THOUSANDS of American lives.

The failure of the democratic party to have any kind of backbone against the Iraq War steamroller is a major reason for its resounding losses in both 2002 and 2004, (it was mostly pro-war Bush sycophant dems who lost their seats) and is a major reason why I can no longer voter exclusively democratic. Sadly, the Democratic party is almost as compromised by corporate money and the military-industrial-complex as the republicans.

Cast another vote for Warmonger Feinstein? HELL NO!

with that one. If a poll were done, I'd bet at least 60% believe that the vote was for the war itself.

A vote for war. I knew that the IWR would take us into Iraq, you knew that the IWR would take us into Iraq, millions upon millions of people around the world knew that the IWR would take us into Iraq, and every single one of our represenatives knew that the IWR would take us into Iraq. Trying to give the war-hawks this fig leave after the fact is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to shift the blame for their vote elsewhere.

The reason you haven't seen other Democrats other than Kerry and Edwards trying to apply this fig leaf is because at least these other Dems have enough of a conscience to own up to their mistakes rather than trying to spin their way out of it. That, or they're just proud of helping drag this country into an illegal, immoral war.

case of exquisitely poor judgment.

W hinted at Iraq since the 2000 debates, Condi delivered the PNAC manifesto at a CFR event BEFORE the Inauguration. Any senator worth his salt knew that it was the policy of this junta to start a war in Iraq (see theis letters egging Clinton to do so)
The facts tht we had, they also did - the aluminum tubes fiasco - the IAEA denunciation of lies, the increasing evidence that it was all bogus.
Wes Clark warned the Congress in 2002 against giving W a blank check on this and explained the consequences of a war.

*Clinton had this to say in August 2002:*

And this is really where the question of Iraq comes in. There's a lot of
debate
about what
should we do with Iraq, and when. And you may want to ask
further questions, but
I will just
make one observation. Saddam Hussein presents no conventional
military threat
to us, and a
much smaller one to his allies than he did before the Gulf War.
His military
strength, it is
commonly conceded, is about 40 percent of what it was before
the Gulf War. He
did try to
assassinate former President Bush in 1993 with the most clumsy
terrorist
operation I ever
saw. The car bombs that we uncovered practically said, "made by
the operatives of
Saddam
Hussein in Baghdad." But after we bombed his intelligence
building, as far as we
know, he
never took another serious terrorist act himself. And the Bush
administration has
said that
Iraq was not involved in September the 11th.
http://www.cfr.org/public/Clinton_6-17-02_Transcript.html

All Poppy's advisors, generals came against this. But somehow, some senators chose to believe the election stealing, Enron codling, Harken embezzling, 911 ignoring and fleeing pretzeldent.
And we are supposed to respect them for this. Or bow to the very few that have the political sense to read the polls and say "I was wrong"

*Sorry. No dice. People died. Period.*

Congressional declaration of war was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Congress GAVE AWAY its power to declare war to Bush!--thus destroying the Constitutional "balance of powers" that was designed to PREVENT WAR BY PRESIDENTIAL FIAT!

IF...IF...the Constitution's explicit provision on war had been obeyed, then Congress...not Bush...*Congress*!...would have had to judge the reaction of the United Nations (AGAINST invasion), the provision of more TIME for the UN weapons inspector to COMPLETE their nearly completed weapons inspection, and the status of any threat (a total Bush phantom) against the United States or its allies. Saddam had NO WEAPONS. None! The UN weapons inspectors would have been able to declare this within weeks of Powell's lying speech to the UN, and the invasion would have been deemed unnecessary. Instead--with the blank check that Congress gave him--Bush and his Cartel forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, and rushed into Iraq and started killing people--tens of thousands of innocents--in an unnecessary "hunt" for weapons that did not exist!

This is the truth of the matter, and the crime STARTED with Congress' giveaway of its power to declare war.

I'm sorry but that initial Constitutional crime was approved by many Democrats. Every one of them who voted for that resolution VIOLATED THEIR OATH OF OFFICE.

Whatever we feel must be done now--to begin to restore our democracy and get our country back--and whoever we feel we must 'support'--if 'support' is the word, given that private Bushite corporations now control the tabulation of our votes with SECRET, PROPRIETARY software in the new electronic voting systems--we MUST NOT FORGET WHO VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND GAVE AWAY THEIR WAR POWERS TO GEORGE BUSH.

The Founders of our government KNEW that a George Bush would come along. They were savvy thinkers who knew their history. They designed the Constitution to PREVENT this very thing from happening: tyranny by the executive on waging war.

The Democrats who voted for it--who DON'T know their history, or don't care--and the Republicans as well, destroyed that "check and balance" on the day of that vote.

I swore on that day that I would never ever vote for or support any politician who approved giving away Congressional war powers to Bush, and I ended up voting for Kerry anyway, because the Bush junta was so out of control. For what my vote was worth. As it turns out, the junta was so out of control that they had ALSO DESTROYED our election system.

So, what do we do NOW? That is the question. It is utterly useless to rail against the War Democrats in this situation, when we have no power whatsoever to put a Peace Democrat in the White House--or any even half-decent individual, who wouldn't loot us and lie to us so much.

What is our 'support' of ANY presidential candidate worth, if Diebold and ES&S have SECRET control of the vote tabulation, with the public having virtually no ability to audit/recount the 'results' of their SECRET formulae?

It's worth SOMETHING, I think. Diebold and ES&S cannot just manufacture candidates and elections--not yet anyway. There has to be SOMETHING for them to fiddle the results of.

And who knows, they may decide to install a decent individual--provided he/she generally supports war and big military budgets (i.e., a War Democrat) for their own reasons?

Actually, I think that is a good possibility. And, in that case, what do us OUTRAGED, PATRIOTIC, PRO-CONSTITUTION, PEACE-LOVING CITIZENS do? Do we throw a shit-fit over the war, sit on our hands, and let the rightwing have another go at ruining the country? Do we, if Diebold and ES&S "select" the War Democrat anyway, destroy that War Democrat's administration, with protests against the continuing, massive US military presence in the Middle East (whether in Iraq or not), the military Draft that the War Democrat will accomplish (inevitable), and the economic ruin that Bush has brought upon us (that the War Democrat will have to deal with)?

No! We have got to be smarter than this. We have got to use that War Democrat to restore our right to vote, because only through honest, transparent elections will we ever be able to change this country's course.

Even a War Democrat has to pay lip service to progressive values such as honest elections. And a War Democrat administration may be the only opportunity we ever get to achieve transparent elections quickly, on a national basis.

There are perils in this strategy--one of them being that president/congress may mandate electronic voting throughout the country, and a national voter database (bad, bad, bad), with yet more inadequate controls. Such an electronic system could then be taken over by fascists as soon as the War Democrat was gotten rid of, and that would be that. No more democracy.

I've always felt that the variety of voting systems, and state power over election systems, is a PROTECTION against bad federal control of our votes. Power over election systems still resides at the state/local level, where ordinary people have more potential influence.

But the situation is so bad that we do need a swift remedy. And, hopefully, we can prevent bad federal legislation.

Another way to go is to get the War Democrat to commit to transparent elections, and use that policy commitment not in Congress, but back in the states and counties. (I prefer this option, even though it's more of a slog. I am very distrustful of Congress, after what they did to us on electronic voting.)

In any case, if we sit on our hands in the '08 election*--stubbornly pissed off about the war--and the War Democrat gets Diebolded into office without our help, we will have NO INFLUENCE in that administration with which to restore honest elections--and if the fascists get a new fresh face as president, we can forget it all--we can forget the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution, and the United States of America--and go live elsewhere.

THAT is our situation. We don't have the luxury to stand on principle--whether it is our abhorrence of war, or the utterly illegal way that war was initiated. We are in a DESPERATE situation in which our very democracy is hanging by the merest of threads.

-------------

*Note: I do not advocate sitting back during the primaries, and letting Diebold and ES&S nominate a War Democrat without opposition. Not at all. I think we should pressure our system to OBEY THE PEOPLE, stop war, and implement justice, however we can. I'm talking about AFTER the primaries, when the inevitable War Democrat has already been "selected" for us.

morning, I am firmly resolved not to vote for one Dem who supported that shirking of their responsibility to the nation. I've been saying this for the last several years too. We are there in an illegal war because Gephardt and Daschle were unwilling to take a stand. Lieberman, Hillary, and any other * apologists can be retired, as they should be. Let's get some leaders.

orchestrated or allowed 9/11, and basically proved his incompetence and idiocy over and over again and they gave this fool that power? uh-uh. too bad. we pay them to be a little brighter than that. how could they trust a proven liar and cheat? besides, we all had his number out here, and beltway myopia is not a defense.

Hillary's comments "I trust this White House...."

Ever since then I fell a little sick whe I see or hear her. Sell-out.

Julie