Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Fifth Anniversary of the Iraq War Resolution: Why We Can't Forgive or Forget
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote granting President George W. Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred.
The responsibility for the deaths of nearly 4,000 American soldiers, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the waste of over a half trillion dollars of our national treasury, and the rise of terrorism and Islamist extremism that has come as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq rests as much in the hands of the members in Congress who authorized the invasion as it does with the administration that requested the lawmakers' approval.
Those who express surprise at the refusal of today's Democratic majority in Congress to stop funding the war should remember this: the October 2002 resolution authorizing the invasion had the support of the majority of Democratic senators as well as the support of the Democratic Party leadership in both the House and the Senate.
Seven of the 77 senators who voted to authorize the invasion - Fred Thompson (R-TN), John McCain (R-AZ), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Joseph Biden (D-DE), and John Edwards (D-NC) are now running for president. While the Republicans candidates remain unapologetic, the Democratic candidates have sought to distance themselves from their vote, arguing that what is important in choosing a president is not how they voted in the past, but what she or he would do now.
Such efforts to avoid responsibility should be rejected out of hand. While I personally support a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as logistically feasible, there is considerable debate among knowledgeable, ethical, and intelligent people - including those who also opposed the invasion - as to what to do now. No reasonable person, however, could have supported the resolution authorizing the invasion five years ago.
On this and other web sites - as well as in many scores of policy reports, newspaper articles, academic journals and other sources - the tragic consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush administration to justify it were made available to every member of the House and Senate (see, for example, The Case Against a War with Iraq). The 2003 vote authorizing the invasion was not like the vote on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the use of force against North Vietnam, for which Congress had no time for hearings or debate and for which most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents. By contrast, in regard to the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a U.S. invasion; members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period.
Violating International Legal Conventions
Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions to which the U.S. government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.
This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing violations of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, but the Security Council did not do so for any subsequent lesser Iraqi violations. The only other exception for the use of force authorized by the charter is in self-defense against armed attack, which even the Bush administration admitted had not taken place.
This effective renunciation of the UN Charter's prohibition against such wars of aggression constituted an effective repudiation of the post-WWII international legal order. Alternative resolutions, such as one authorizing force against Iraq if authorized by the UN Security Council, were voted down by a bipartisan majority.
Some of those who voted for the war resolution and their supporters have since tried to rewrite history by claiming the resolution had a stronger legal basis. For example, in a recent interview with The Progressive magazine, Elizabeth Edwards claimed that the resolution supported by her husband, then-Senator John Edwards, involved "forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first." In reality, not only was no such provision included in the resolution that passed, Edwards voted against the resolution amendment that would have required such a precondition, arguing that "our national security requires" that "we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action."
Ignoring the Critics
Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. Few people I know who are familiar with Iraq have been at all surprised that the U.S. invasion has become such a tragedy. Indeed, most of us were in communication with congressional offices and often with individual members of Congress themselves in the months leading up to the vote warning of the likely consequences of an invasion and occupation. Therefore, claims by Senator Clinton and other leading Democratic supporters of the war that they were unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.
The resolution also contained accusations that were known or widely assumed to be false at that time, such as claims of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. A definitive report by the Department of Defense noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based on the evidence available at that time.
The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability." In reality, Iraq had long eliminated its nuclear program, a fact that was confirmed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998, four years prior to the resolution.
The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq at that time continued "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." In reality, as the U.S. government now admits, Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons nearly a decade earlier and no longer had any active chemical and biological weapons programs. This likelihood that Iraq no longer had operational chemical or biological weapons was brought to the attention of members of Congress by a number of top arms control specialists, as well as Scott Ritter, the American who headed UNSCOM's efforts to locate Iraq's possible hidden caches of chemical and biological weapons, hidden supplies or secret production facilities.
No Evidence
Virtually all of Iraq's known stockpiles of chemical and biological agents had been accounted for and the shelf life of the small amount of materiel that had not been accounted for - which, as it ends up, had also been destroyed - had long since expired and was therefore no longer of weapons grade. There was no evidence that Iraq have any delivery systems for such weapons, either. In addition, the strict embargo, in effect since 1990, against imports of any additional materials needed for the manufacture of WMDs, combined with Iraq's inability to manufacture such weapons or delivery systems themselves without detection, made any claims that Iraq constituted any "significant chemical and biological weapons capability" transparently false to anyone who cared to investigate the matter at that time. Indeed, even the classified full version of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while grossly overestimating Iraq's military capability, was filled with extensive disagreements, doubts, and caveats regarding President Bush's assertions regarding Iraq's WMDs, WMD programs, and delivery systems.
The House and Senate members who now claim they were "misled" about Iraq's alleged military threat fail to explain why they found the administration's claims so much more convincing than the many other reports made available to them from more objective sources that presumably made a much stronger case that Iraq no longer had offensive WMD capability. Curiously, except for one excerpt from a 2002 National Security Estimate released in July 2003 - widely ridiculed at the time for its transparently manipulated content - not a single member of Congress has agreed to allow me any access to any documents they claim convinced them of the alleged Iraqi threat. In effect, they are using the infamous Nixon defense from the Watergate scandal that claims that, while they have evidence to vindicate themselves, making it public would somehow damage national security. In reality, if such reports actually exist, they are clearly inaccurate and outdated and would therefore be of no threat to national security if made public.
Democrats' Responsibility
The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized for it by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs are responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat. For example, Bush has noted how "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a speech attacking anti-war activists, Bush noted how "Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.'"
Indeed, the fact that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry voted in favor of the resolution likely cost the Democrats the White House and, should Senator Clinton - who claimed, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, that Iraq's possession of such weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed" - get the nomination, it could also threaten the Democrats' hopes for victory in 2008. Similarly, should Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, or former Senator Edwards - who also made false claims about Iraqi WMDs - get the nomination, it could have a similarly deleterious impact to the Democrats' chances.
It's also important to recognize that not everyone in Congress voted to authorize the invasion. There were the 21 Senate Democrats -- along with one Republican and one Independent -- who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats -- including presidential contender Dennis Kucinich -- voted against the resolution as well. In total, then, a majority of Democrats in Congress defied their leadership by saying no to war. This means that the Democrats who did support the war, despite being over-represented in leadership positions and among presidential contenders, were part of a right-wing minority and did not represent the mainstream of their party.
The resolution also claimed that "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States . . . or provide them to international terrorists who would do so... combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself." In other words, those members of the House and Senate who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium and long-range missiles, and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 6,000 miles away. Furthermore, these members of Congress believed, or claimed to believe, that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country, overthrow its government, and place its people under military occupation in the name of "self-defense," regardless of whether Iraq allowed inspectors back into the county to engage in unfettered inspections to prove that the WMDs, WMD programs and weapons systems no longer existed.
International Opposition
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was opposed by virtually the entire international community, including Iraq's closest neighbors, who presumably had the most to be concerned about in terms of any possible Iraqi military threat. However, the members of Congress who voted to authorize the invasion were determined to make the case that the United States - with the strongest military the world has ever known and thousands of miles beyond the range of Iraq's alleged weapons and delivery systems - was so threatened by Iraq that the United States had to launch an invasion, overthrow its government and occupy that country for an indefinite period.
This shows a frighteningly low threshold for effectively declaring war, especially given that in most cases these members of Congress had been informed by knowledgeable sources of the widespread human and material costs which would result from a U.S. invasion. It also indicates that they would likely be just as willing to send American forces off to another disastrous war again, also under false pretenses. Indeed, those who voted for the war demonstrated their belief that:
* the United States need not abide by its international legal obligations, including those prohibiting wars of aggression;
* claims by right-wing U.S. government officials and unreliable foreign exiles regarding a foreign government's military capabilities are more trustworthy than independent arms control analysts and United Nations inspectors;
* concerns expressed by scholars and others knowledgeable of the likely reaction by the subjected population to a foreign conquest and the likely complications that would result should be ignored; and, faith should instead be placed on the occupation policies forcibly imposed on the population by a corrupt right-wing Republican administration.
As a result, support for the 2002 Iraq War resolution is not something that can simply be forgiven and forgotten.
Stephen Zunes (www.stephenzunes.org) is the Middle East editor of Foreign Policy In Focus and a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2007, Institute for Policy Studies
56 Comments so far
Show AllWho authored the original legislation authorizing the Iraq war? Hint: same guy who is agitating to start a war with Iran. Give up? It was Joe Lieberman, the Israeli agent masquerading as a US senator.
RE: YUP - NO HIDING BEHIND 'WE DIDN'T KNOW' - THE FRAUDULENT INVASION WAS BUSTED IN THE PROGRESSIVE/INTERNATIONAL PRESS FROM THE START
"The resolution...contained accusations that were known or widely assumed to be false at that time"
Yea. The wmd and terror allegations were fraudulent and crudely contrived. During the invasion run-up, each new piece of 'evidence' was exposed and debunked by progressive domestic and international critics - over the credulous, 'concerned' wagging heads of the mainstream press, and despite the hysterical denunciations of the right.
Of all the stupid-assed, hysterical lies, my favorite was Iraq's 'unmanned aerial vehicles, loaded w/biological toxins, waiting to strike deep inland on 'homeland' turf.'
Edwards learned the lesson. He's our best hope now.
Obama can't win any states Kerry lost.
Hillary just plain can't win.
That leaves Edwards. He's got the best policies on pretty much anything, anyway.
It is one thing to be a global capitalist and quite another to be a global warmonger.
Who could not see the urgency and importance of stopping a crazy madman from taking over the country.
I fully support the right of anyone to run for whatever office under whatever party they wish, but there comes a time when you have to make a rational intelligent decision to either throw your vote away to make a protest statement or select one of the two candidates who will actually become president.
If the Naderites saw absolutely no difference between Gore and Bush I have to question their judgment and their motives.
KUCINICH for a sane approach to politics.
I'm proud to have voted for Nader in 2000 and would do so again.
Read Gore's "Assault on Reason" and you'll find him affirming the goodness of the original Gulf War under PapaBush and the "intervention" in Bosnia under Clinton, and both times the US employed depleted uranium. You won't find a mention of depleted uranium anywhere in the book -- not even that it was used, much less its terrifying effects.
Gore is also a global capitalist as much as Clinton was & remains. "Assault on Reason" applauds the capitalism=democracy formula, the neo-liberal doctrine, he just says that we have a bad version of it where wealth takes the place of good capitalism.
I love all these people who bewail third parties; I would be satisfied with a second party, never mind a third.
We are at a pivotal time in History.
The Cor-'pirate' Empire has outlived its usefulness.
It's a sham.
It must be dismantled
It will take a fight.
But, we must take back our Democracy and everything else they have stolen!
They are a abuse of power.
Many lives have been lost at what a cost!
Unless we stop them now.
We need a complete decentralization of The Corpirate System.
Local manufacturing, energy and food production are important parts of this change.
Invest in yourselves, your neighborhoods, energy independence and food production.
While they are robbing everybody blind do you think they are worrying about you?
Forget the Shlock Market.
Invest in yourself.
Spend your Dollars while they are still worth something!
The End of the Oil age is upon us.
We must cast off it's yoke of oppression.
When Dick The Heartless Ch-'ainey' dies?
So will it!
Who owns the World?
A few ruthless criminals that have taken control and privatized everything for their own benefit?
Or
Everyone else?
Fundamental to the re-
Democratization of America is a Free Vital Local Media,
Exempt from Corporate and Government control.
The Media Conglomerates will be broken up.
Local news and media production is an important part of Democratic life.
It's a safety issue.
The power of the media must be returned to the people.
For the safety and benefit of everyone.
Billionaires-R-Us must relinquish their stranglehold on public discourse.
They have abused their power by limiting viewpoints and information.
Ever worst they have openly used well know repetitive Hypnotic Techniques to
Brainwash the Citizenry.
They are also poisoning the people by adding dangerous nutrient less poisonous chemicals to the food supply.
Diabetes epidemic anyone!
The Dark Army must be disbanded.
While all of our local Militia is off fighting a phony War,
Who is protecting us here?
We are in deep Doo Doo!
The Change is upon us.
Will we take Destiny into our own hands?
and change it for the better?
Or
Will we bow down to Corpirate Control?
Even the Iraqis are fighting for their country.
What are we doing here?
Free ourselves first and then lead by example.
There will always be someone circumventing the system and bending it for their own benefit.
Our Republic has to be protected.
We must measure our success by how the least amongst us is doing.
Only after everyone is provided for,
Will our founding father's wishes be granted.
Freedom is something that has to be guarded and protected
Like a Sacred Challis.
Once you drunk from the cup.
You can never go back again,
To living in Slavery.
I must agree with Nader2000 (an odd name for an opponent of third party candidates) nevertheless he makes some compelling points.
Basically it would be suicidal for progressives to abandon the dems and cast a protest vote for the Green Party.
We went thru this nightmare scenario in 2000 when the Naderites insisted there was not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.
Obviously people like Phil Donahue who strongly promoted Nader could actually financially afford to vote their conscience, after all the worst that could happen if Georgie Boy got in office would be a big tax cut on his millions.
Despite the many problems we all have with the spineless democrats at this moment, liberals must admit that even Hillary would be a thousand times better than any of the republicans, especially the maniacal warmonger Giuliani.
We must keep in mind that in the final analysis it was the republicans that lied and cheated there way into a global war.
Yes, the democrats helped to enable the thugs in the white house but ultimately it was a republican show from beginning to end. And nothing we could have said or done would have stopped them.
We were just attached by foreigners and over 70 percent of the country supported a war with any Arab country it did not matter which one, to most Americans they are all the same and bombing any or all of them was okay with them.
It was Napoleon Bonehead the little man that the Supremes gave all this power to who initiated Shock and Awe. He sent Condi on the talk show circuit to help scare the public with visions of mushroom clouds.
Whether the democrats voted to support or reject this megalomaniac was of very little significance the gang in the white house was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of what the Congress or the UN had to say.
The democrats became puppets for the warmongers but that is not to say that they would have initiated such a catastrophic war if a democrat were our commander in chief at the time?
So once again I have to agree with Nader2000 that this time around we do not have the luxury of casting a protest vote, there is just too much at stake.
KUCINICH/OBAMA 2008
Oscar October 11th, 2007 7:32 am
"I was disappointed in Edwards, but WE HAVE TO move on. He is the best we have.
Unless Gore enters the race, and I hope he does, we have to choose among who is before us."
The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the actions, voting Democrat or Republican, while each time expecting different results.
Lobo Gris
Consider a criminal-conspiracy -- one involving disparate-parties who, for sundry-reasons and rationales, have decided on an enterprise involving robbery for gain...some just 'greedy', and others self-Justified as "Robin Hoods" for some 'noble-cause'. The crime formulates then evolves beyond 'initially agreed-upon scope'. Worse, the most-aggressive amongst the conspirators commits murder during a larcenous-act -- alienating and offending those intending only the-Larceny, and perhaps only involved as 'getaway-drivers'.
Do those so-alienated and offended then face Felony-Murder statutes by turning-in those-others who "crossed the line"?
[Generally-not. But, when there is any "honor among thieves", those of-Honor do avoid further-conspiracies with those who had 'elevated the crimes' -- unless blackmailed into same by those Arch-Criminals threatening to 'bring all down' sans such continued-crime and cover-up.]
"Washington DC is only 6,200 miles from Baghdad...George W. Bush is an idiot who can barely read a map, but most of his American critics aren't much smarter."
Please...and can Google factor for the extremes of Hawaii or Alaska (or American-Samoa, all-embassies, and 700+ American-bases internationally)?
Let's not split-hairs. Distances plus relative-strengths (and Alliances) made a 'threat' so weak as to be inconsequential.
One could have equivocated, however, along the lines that votes for the AUMF were motivated by shared-Interests for Israeli-security (seen as 'equivalent'), that language-within delimited 'force' as applicable only 'after and if' all other Joint-efforts/containment had failed, and, that 'Yea'-votes were offered (in the stoked post-9/11 atmosphere) in surety that such a 'brandished-sword' would send a message of-itself -- negating the 'need' for any actual use-of-force [intending-bluster, combined with 'faith in sanity within the Executive'].
One _could_ have so-argued -- until the recent vote re: Iran, that-is.
It seems Congress (both-sides of aisles) has now accepted "in for a-dollar, in for a-pound". Few are 'principled' (or blameless) enough to risk what no-doubt would follow any proper Investigation/Prosecution into the overall-matter that an Impeachment would result-in. [Even Carter agrees, and he knows better-than-most that US-laundry (including his) is far too-dirty to 'air in public'].
I was disappointed in Edwards, but WE HAVE TO move on. He is the best we have.
Hillary is too polarizing, and Obama was not in the Senate to find out how he would have voted.
Unless Gore enters the race, and I hope he does, we have to choose among who is before us.
Hi Dara...
Thanks for noticing my little geography lesson for Prof. Zunes.
Almost nobody in American politics has to worry about getting anything right, because their inner rightness overwhelms all objections. Prof. Zunes' innards are right, even if his summary of the notorious Senate resolution is worthless. As far as I can tell, Prof. Zunes' doesn't offer any kind of explanation of why so many Democrats voted for that ludicrous mishmash, and his only prescription seems to be replacing all those naughty Senators with better people.
I don't know why we should stop with the Senate. Personally, I would like to replace most of the population with better people, and most of the animals in the zoo with better animals, and most of the furniture in my house with better furniture.
So Prof. Zunes and I are basically on the same side. Betterness is good. I would even go so far as to say Betterness is better.
But while we rehash the nauseatingly familiar rationale for invading Iraq, Bush/Cheney are preparing to bomb Iran, and none of us has the least idea how to stop it.
Jacob Freeze wrote:
> Washington DC is only 6,200 miles from Baghdad
It would be interesting to hear where Stephen Zunes got the number of 10,000 miles from. If this is a miles/km mistake, it is still overstating it (though by less), DC is a shade under 9920 km from Baghdad (the 6,200 miles figure is correct according to Google Earth and a few hundred miles closer to Northwest Iraq). I can't find a reference that claims anybody measures ballistic missile range as anything other than distance along the globe (though of course their flight distance is longer).
I wouldn't compare Zunes (who I agree with) to Bush (who's many factual mistakes are good fodder for comedians, but that's not why most of us who read this site despise him), but I agree that it is better to get all your facts straight when making an argument.
amberwaves wrote:
> Zunes' article is spot on. Forgiveness is possible if the perpetrators apologized for their vote ...
Did this person read the same article? Zunes is arguing forgiveness is not possible whether they apologize or not (at least not forgiving them by voting for them anyway). I agree, but that cuts the field by a lot. There are many who argue Edwards has a better story for those on the left than Obama (e.g. Paul Street at Z Magazine), but Zunes's argument offers no hope for Edwards - he should just go back to practicing law or something. I think Richardson is out as far as Zunes is concerned too since although he wasn't in a position to vote for the war, he did support it initially. That leaves Gravel, Kucinich, and Obama (and Ron Paul if you don't mind his non-progressive positions on a lot of other issues).
Dara Parsavand
Few times in recent history have we had a government that could not be trusted by the people who have erroneously elected it (we did elect these bandits, didn't we? - Remembering the Ohio GOPeer's conspiracy against the American people and the GOPeer bandit's that went to jail as a result).
The last 6.8 years had reminded many American's of what the German people must have felt and lived through in the late 1930's - 1940's as the Nazi's took power from under the noses of the German people and set off to conquer the world.
America would be well served if George Bush and Dick Cheney we impeached and thrown into a wet cell at Quantico for the treasonous destruction of the US Constitution - and their crimes against America and its people - a document they swore to defend, so help them God(?).
TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.
Another great article, Mr. Zunes.
"Even if the Bush gang stole some votes and got the Supreme Court to administer the coup de grace."
Quote Nader2000
This is the issue. I would like you to look up Chuck Hagel (miraculously he was the head of a voting company BEFORE he became a senator in a state that was always democratic- no wonder he is starting to develop a conscience) - the guy who stole the Nebraska Senate seat as well- and Nader wasn't running then either.
The fact is we live in an eerie time - when touchscreen machines, chads being declared invalid, mail in votes being desregarded, not to mention thousands being barred from voting by being falsely labeled as felons!! In short there were a multtude of irregularities and many crossed the border of criminal activities - including the Supreme Court decision.
It is my view - a delusional to think that Nader had an impact on Bush's election - just like it is delusional to think that there were actually rebulican voters supporting Lieberman - and so he 'won' as an independent.
The shock reverberating from AIPAC to the White House when he LOST the Democratic primary in Conneticut - meant only one thing - that americans HAD to know WHO was in charge - and Lieberman WAS going to the Senate - allowing many understand - that it is not the voters who can meddle with established oligarchies.
Gandhi's point - is one which is constantly being overlooked in all these so-called "academic" discussion PARTICULARLY by academicians!! That is America HAS been dominating and engaging in unbridled imperialism since the war since the war against the Iroquois and Pequot nations. That America has been and always will continue to be an extension of colonialism that was first practiced by Spain England, France and Germany is not necessarily surprising. What is surprising is that the progressivs on this and many other sites do NOT recognize that a large number of people SUPPORT this - as (and they are not incorrect) it is correctly surmised that one doesn't have an inrodinately luxurious lifestyle without the extraction of wealth from whole nations - to the point that it trickles down to even those previously in servitude.
I am not going to go into the OBVIOUS connections of the US with Bin Laden, Al Quaeda (AKA the MUjahedeen aka Taliban aka just keep fightin those russians boys), Saddam Hussein (who really believes after the first war that CRUSHING reparations allowing a few hundred people to become multi-milionaires via OIL for Food, etc etc had NO US involvement- seriously). Anyway - the point is clear - the only countries we went to war with is countries we owned - hmm Panama comes to mid too now that I think of it.
In that respect - Dr. Zunes has a laudable kinship with the silent majority. Those who silently acknowledge and support colonialism (or any other name you wish - such a Imperialism, Capitalism, "Democracy" etc). No doubt his freudian slip of 10,000 miles is related to the subconcious need to put distance between his volitional support of this system and surreptitious moral acceptance of the consequences on powerless people/ nations to transform them and their countries into wretches (El Salvadir/Ecuador/Guatemala/Zimbabwe/South Aftrica/Congo etc ad nauseum) from the more diturbing acceptance of historical facts that show that in many ways the general population of America is more parasitic than the often scorned americans who 'can't get a job', or 'get off welfare' or are 'too lazy'- who are also being relegated to powerless wrteches with in the US.
While it is understandable that all citizens of all nation would rather attribute the wealth of their country to themselves rather than institutional robbery of other nations via armies, and government supported institutions called corporations (a reminder of American Fruit Company-Cuba. If any civilized being can not see the link between Beings/ Mobile/Chevron/GMs interest coinciding with the US policy of expansio as relevant to foreing nation and foreign competion- well what can I say - you can't describe the sun to a blind man - no matter HOW hard you try.
The point is that there IS and HAS been acceptance of these policies for decades and we have 700 military bases to PROVE it. Okinawa will NEVER be forgiven for inflicting so many casualties on the US army in just four square miles. What I find mind boggling is that Grenada led to no outrage- and all countries no matter how small and pathetic (IRAQ after having lost the war in humiliating fashion) are callously destroyed - multiple genocides have taken place - and still we as the human race refuse to forsake war and embrace brotherhood. Instead we find an exponential increase i neo-nazis. fundamentalist christians, hindus, muslims - you name it.
Zunes' article is spot on. Forgiveness is possible if the perpetrators apologized for their vote, their unwillingness to listen to public opinion in the US or world wide, their failure to follow the constitution, a majority of scholars on the Middle East, and their failure to stall for time to assist diplomatic and UN efforts.
Longingforsanity-abbeybwood-Ephraim__You all hit the nail on the head___Gore`s chosing Lieberman was a monumental mistake and probably cost the election and would have been a great problem if they had gotten in. One wonders if Rove was clever enough to push behind the scenes for Lieberman, much like the Repugs are honking for Hillary as they will destroy her. We the people have totally lost control of our nation as it is all big money, cronyism, fraud, and ideology taking over. No wonder O`Bama quit wearing his flag pin, although he has taken plenty of campaign funds too. Yes, Nader messed up the vote, but the real problem was the criminals that stole the vote in Florida and repeated in Ohio. Gore did not use Clinton enough and quit too soon on contesting the race. Thanks also to our Supremes who appointed Bush and Cheny.
Some people are playing a game. You see there are two sides, one weaker and one stronger. You have three choices: join the strong side, join the weak side, or walk away.
If you join the strong side, they are that much stronger, and the result of your action does not change the outcome. If you join the weak side, they are now stronger and might have the strength to defeat the strong side. You have altered the outcome of the game. If you walk away, you give up your chance to change the outcome. You decide.
The point of this article is that it was just as obvious to the members of Congress that the war was based on lies as it was to us. Those who want to buy the story that the poor helpless stupid misinformed Congresspeople didn't realize what they were voting for need only look at the votes of the same Members for a series of Acts that abridge our Constitutional rights, and that authorize war against Iran based on the same lies we all now supposedly see through in the case of Iraq. The point is, these people are NOT motivated by what's best for the country and they can't be trusted. Kucinich voted against it for the same reasons he opposes other wars of conquest, and attacks on our rights, and total empowerment of corporations. Clearly, he would NOT get us into a war with Iran--and so he is marginalized and ridiculed by the MSM, including the Daily Show. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy--the MSM endlessly informs us that we all love Hilary and she's the front-runner (where are all these people who love her? Idaho? I don't know ANY of them). Likewise, they tell us without exception that Kucinich, who agrees with the public on many issues, is a laughable figure you could not seriously vote for.
Stop drinking the Kool Ade--stop imagining that if we just get more Democrats elected everything will get better. We did that in 06, remember? And NOTHING changed. We need to dig into the root causes of this situation--corporate control of the mainstream media and privately funded elections. Otherwise we're just like Charlie Brown, hoping that THIS time, Lucy isn't going to yank the football just when he kicks it.
Ken Mitchell said:
You mentioned the candidates who voted for the war. You neglected one who was against it from day one: Ron Paul.
i say
add Kucinich too
also
cripes i am not that smart but geezus congress & senate!
i only had access to the internet - yet there was plenty of info from scott ritter, noam chomsky, howard zinn, robert fisk to name a few
oh
and add this too: just plain common sense ie.: never trust a liar and a cheat (thats how bush got "selected") duh
its enough to make you wonder if there is something they're all not telling us as to why they voted this way (was their family threatened? way of life? - hmmm could be - if you look at the peak oil situation we have - its all about getting in on the last of this resource that totally drives our economy and our way of life...
so i agree overall with this article' s premise : We Can't Forgive nor Forget!
vote kucinich!
or ron paul!
Mr. Zunes talks about the ridiculous claims that Iraq was a threat to "a superpower located more than 10,000 miles away."
Which superpower is that?
Washington DC is only 6,200 miles from Baghdad. Baghdad to Moscow, 1600 miles. Beijing to Baghdad, 4000 miles. Tokyo? 5200. Singapore? 4400. Vanuatu? Still only 8800 miles.
George W. Bush is an idiot who can barely read a map, but most of his American critics aren't much smarter.
jimbofrommempho, I'd recommend against quoting Theodore Parker on that point. He was one of the "Secret Six" who supported an act of armed insurrection by our Osama Bin Laden, John Brown (beard, Holy Scriptures, murder and all).
In March 2003 I wrote a letter to the editor of a major metro newspaper comparing our upcoming invasion of Iraq to Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. I pointed out that people in those countries were wrong to "support the troops". Would you believe that the paper didn't print the letter? Perhaps war opponents should have held up signs with ironic slogans like "Obey the Leader", "Death to Enemies of the Fatherland" and "America Rules the World".
Breaks my heart that again I find myself in the position of being forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in order to keep a horrible republican administration from retaining power. Maybe at some point in our lives we will have the opportunity of voting for a decent stateman (or woman) whom I would be proud to call my President. Until then ...
Remember the words of Theodore Parker (A true American Heretic):
"War is an utter violation of Christianity. If war be right then Christianity is wrong, false and a lie. Every person who understands Christianity knows that war is wrong.
War is treason to the people, to mankind, to God."
and because it's still the way it was in 2002
we can expect an attack on iran in 2008 if not 2007.
especially because the various neocon and aipac types want the attack on iran even more than they wanted the attack on iraq.
Bill from Saginaw
I do agree with you basically. I think that none of those who voted for the AUMF realized that Bush would jump directly into an invasion of Iraq on the basis of lies.
Yet, those who voted for it and are STILL continuing to support the occupation really oughta' be sweating. I'd say let them take some heat if they're still buying the Bush lies about Iraq AND Iran.
The very thought of a new attack based on lies bought by supposedly antiwar legislators, this one on Iran, makes me sick to my stomach. Iraq is now in shambles, with around one million dead and many many Iraqs now refugees in other countries. Bush obviously wants to make the Mid East an abbatoir.
So let 'em sweat, those who are willing for Bush to devastate another country. Among the Democratic candidates, Hillary, who voted for the AUMF, has already shown her colors with her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, saying that Iran is responsible for problems in Iraq. Once again, she's bought Bush's lies. So let her sweat for both those votes...
Although I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen Zunes' bottom line analysis, he asserts some things in the process of getting there that I just can't swallow.
For instance, Zunes declares "No reasonable person..... could have supported the resolution authorizing the invasion five years ago."
"By contrast [to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution]..... Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as the likely implications of a US invasion; members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period."
While it's true that Congress knew that it was authorizing George Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq, few suspected they were approving an indefinite neocolonial military occupation, or that they were setting the stage to march further on and topple the mullahs in Tehran, with an eye on reshaping the whole Middle East.
That's simply not at all how the Iraq War was packaged and sold by the White House propaganda machine in the fall of 2002, in the pressure cooker environment orchestrated by Karl Rove and the GOP House and Senate leadership. The depths of the depravity in Bush's inner circle had not yet been exposed back then, when the vote was called.
Months to investigate and debate? Bullshit.
As Andy Card so famously put it, you don't launch your ad campaign in August. You wait until the fall, when folks have come home from the beach, to introduce the new product line.
The 2002 AUMF resolution, calling for regime change in Iraq, was rolled out into public view for the first time as a legislative fiat accompli in an infamous Rose Garden ceremony held October 3, 2002, that featured House minority leader Richard Gephardt, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator John McCain standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a grand bipartisan circle jerk behind George Bush. After thanking all concerned for their support, the President ranted how Saddam Hussein was "a student of Stalin....on his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes.... women have been systematically raped..... Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured...." NY Times, 10/3/02, article by Elisabeth Bumiller and Alison Mitchell.
The AUMF was formally introduced on October 4th, and was passed by both the House and Senate by October 16, 2002 with no meaningful amendment of its original text. There were no hearings. The Senate Democrats literally had to beg the CIA for a hastily concocted National Intelligence Estimate update addressing Iraq's WMD and Saddam's claimed ties to Al Qaeda.
Year laters, when the smoking gun Downing Street memos surfaced, it was shown that the Brits were deeply worried that the frantic pace of the invasion run up -clearly timed for purely partisan reasons to coincide with the first anniversary of 9/11 and catch the November, 2002 American election cycle - was perhaps reckless in its haste.
Given the dynamics of the 1991 Persian Gulf campaign and the spectacular (short term)collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan, was it really all that unreasonable to believe that Saddam might fold and go into exile, or fall to a CIA-sponsored coup among his generals?
Even now, with the benefit of five full years hindsight, can it be fairly said that the 77 members of the Senate who voted yea were were all unreasonable people, as unreasonable as the majority of the House, who similarly joined the AUMF stampede?
The 2002 AUMF resolution should be repealed tomorrow on its merits, as the pending bill cosponsored by Robert Byrd and Hillary Clinton proposes. The AUMF is a shameful piece of legislation on par with the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien & Sedition Act, and the Military Commissions Act, riddled with jingoism, fear mongering and blatant falsehood.
Full disclosure: I'm proud to say that when the fat was in the fire that awful fall, I was part of the crowd out picketing in the streets. Also, my elected representatives all voted right, on what's turned out to be the right side of history, despite it all.
But rather than screaming "I told you so" too loudly, shouldn't we admit that the 2002 AUMF was a tough, tough vote?
Rove, Bush and the GOP deliberately set it up that way, to steam roll the Dems and split the antiwar base from the DC leadership.
The tactic worked.
Let's not get finessed again.
Why not focus our energy and angst upon getting those who should have known better the first time, to find the courage to get it right the second time around, and repeal the Iraq war AUMF?
Bill from Saginaw
Americans stay asleep because they want to stay asleep. Bush isn't impeached because our oily empire is in bed with him and the international criminals. This is a LIFESTYLE WAR, a war we chose to maintain a standard of living (imagine: son, go and kill and die so that we have a nice big car; and, thanks, from all of us.") But our conscience has evolved so that now we hear the 500-year empire-victims' screams....I just saw Wolf U-Boat interviewing Jimmy Carter who in the midst of blasting BushCo called impeachment "inappropriate." HUH? What other mechanism do we have for trying to wake up? The last few tries were called Nixon, Vietnam, Clinton....
"Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred."
Really? So Cheney and the PNAC neocrazy cabal would have just rolled over and gone back into hiding just as their last shot at the gold was at their bloody fingertips? Because they, er, care about what used to be known as "the rule of law?" Because they, er, care about the will of We The People? Because they, er, suddenly were cured of their heartless lust for money and power? Because, er, "our" interests are no longer "Israel's interests?"
Nice fantasy, but this evil little mafia of loons were taking out a million Iraqis whether they had "permission" or not, just like they were gonna slash taxes for their "base" whether America could afford it or not, just like they were gonna spy without warrants whether it was legal or not, just like they were...
Attention all liberal hawks (who love regime change for cruel and despotic regimes).
How about getting on a bandwagon to get the UN to regime change US forces out of Iraq?
How about you Packer, you Mikaya, Wolfowitz, you too, Hillary, NPR's Scott Simon, Perle, and the rest of the neo-con crowd????
If only voters had at least listened to what Nader said (and now Kucinich) the elections might have turned out to the country's benefit; but those DAMN Republicrats refused to investigate the election counts, and now they refuse to listen to anybody but the Great Decider.
Simply impeaching the lot for crimes against their own country isn't enough. Holding them accountable in a court of law is at least a start.
Demand the unpatriotic tele-media so-call journalists to give time to Kucinich and Nader
to voice opinions.
I know we're all sick and tired of what Wolfe Schitzer, ucker Carlson, Christopher Matthews, Franken Saysno, and those ladies of the shopping mall and gated communities, have to utter.
Incidentally, a few weeks ago I called Kucinch's office to enquire if he was to be included in a tv debate that evening. The woman who answered the phone refused to provide an answer because she claims she is not allowed to discuss politics.
I'm told such phone ops are prohibited to divulge such information in spite of the fact that my question was not a political discussion.
If the situation gets any loonier nobody will talk to each other and nobody will vote.
As far as Kerry losing the election in 2004, we only need to look to the state of Ohio! It's been proven that the train named "the 2004 election", wrecked there (Ohio). As far as effecting any changes, any where in the political spectrum is concerned, there will not be any until, unless 'we the people" take to the streets and take our government back!!!
You mentioned the candidates who voted for the war. You neglected one who was against it from day one: Ron Paul.
longingforsanity and abbywood both get it; sadly Nader2000 doesn't and refuses to. abbybwood is also spot on about Lieberman having far more to do with Gore losing than Nader did. Gore blew it in many ways, all by himself, but it's essential for some to still blame Nader, even after, as I said before, Gore doesn't blame him. At least Gore has the dignity not to carry around a chip on his shoulder about Nader, unlike so many die-hard Nader haters like Mr. 2000, who doesn't even think we have a right to make our own decisions about how we vote. I suppose we must all consult you next year about whom to vote for? And if we don't get it exactly right we'll have to beat our breasts and confess our collective guilt. After all, as you say, this is YOUR country, obviously not anyone elses's. If you feel guilty about voting for Nader, that means everyone else must? Well, I voted for him twice (in 1996 as well) and must inform you I have never been burdened by the guilt you demand we all feel. So please, stop laying your guilt trips on those of us who aren't ashamed of ourselves for voting our conscience.
Nader2000:
If Gore had won the election I truly believe it only would have been a matter of months before Israel had Lieberman in as President. Which is why Gore "chose" him. He was told to. Why else would Gore have chosen a man whose primary interest is the State of Israel and NOT the United States? Lieberman is a lying snake and everyone knows it.
Yes, Gore would have had "family problems" or something in order to let Lieberman in. And 9/11, the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act, the invasion of Iraq (and next Iran) would have gone down perfectly according to the Neocon plan.
I will always blame Gore and not Nader for losing in 2000 mostly due to Gore's selection of Lieberman for Vice and also for the way he caved on his supporters during the recount in Florida. Even when he didn't fight for a full state recount, including ALL the absentee ballots from overseas, he caved in Congress when the election was being certified and the various Representatives brought forward their very legal protests. He had the power and said, "No."
Let's face it folks. Had Gore asked the American People to get their asses to Florida by plane, train or automobile to take a stand for a statewide recount, we would have. And I can guarantee you that the Bush/Cheney coup would have ended.
But Gore is an un-democratic wimp with poor judgment. No wimps or Israeli's should be allowed to lead this country.
Although to try to throw a monkey wrench into the works I did go to DraftGore.com today and sign the petition. Anything to pull Hillary's panties into a bunch. I can only hope Gore has learned his lesson to stand up for the People and stop being an apologist for Israel.
Could one of you democratic ditto-heads please explain in easy to understand terms how you "own" my vote?
And if I run for office as a green, is it ok to vote for myself, or am I stealing my own vote?
Put the kool-aid down, and step slowly away from the ballot box until its effects have worn off.
If Gore had been seated as President in 2000, have we forgotten that we would have had Vice President Lieberman?
We all love Gore now; he's done the world's best job of reconstructing himself. May his impact on this earth have a net positive value....... But in 2000 he was a product of the DLC; he conceded a stolen election and as sitting Vice President (see Farenheit 911 footage) he refused a challenge sought by the black congressional caucus.
I don't know what I will do if Hillary gets proclaimed the candidate. Hillary is already saber rattling. I hope if she is nominated that I will respect the choices of both people who vote for her as the lesser evil, and of those who refuse to vote for evil. Sometimes you just do your best. That's all you owe.
The problem with articles, such as this, on US invasion of Iraq is the premise that the result of this war is "the rise of terrorism and Islamist extremism". Nowhere in this article does the author characterise the very aggression of the US and its allies on a sovereign country violating international laws and basic human values as CHRISTIAN TERRORISM. Whereas the author is comfortable to call resistance in Iraq as "terrorism and Islamic extremism" (implied). Unless the western and American media and the public acknowledge and call the US occupation of Iraq, the torture and butchering of innocent Iraqis, and the destruction of the infrastructure by the American and European Christians as the CHRISTIAN TERRORISM, they will continue the culture of Puritans and Columbus. That is the culture of genocide, slavery, racism, and greed. They call this culture a civilized culture of "righteous" people. It is this distorted view of themselves and the "other" that is seen in narratives like this article.
I just love these denials that Nader helped put Bush into office. Even if the Bush gang stole some votes and got the Supreme Court to administer the coup de grace, it was a close election and could easily have gone the other way. Nader's vote totals would indicate that he tipped two states to Bush, and the fact that he divided the left across the nation, telling us not to support the evil, corporate Mr. Gore, urging us to buy into a Ponzi scheme fantasy ("imagine if you get ten people to support me, ant they get ten more..."), promising pie in the sky, draining progressive energy that could have gone into winning the election and leading us into a blind alley, a meaningless protest vote, is probably more significant.
Defenders like to say idiotic things like, "Maybe he pushed Gore to the left and Bush would have won even bigger otherwise," as if Gore's own professionals didn't have a better sense of what kind of rhetoric would get the most votes on election day. And even more idiotic things like "It's MY vote and I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT." Yes you can, Mr. and Mrs. America! And you can wash your hands of the consequences, too.
But of course, the guilt is too much to face up to. Why do I use the screen name Nader2000? Well, I voted for Nader in 2000. It was the wrong thing to do. We should have united to beat Bush, because we certainly had enough information to know what he and his gang would try to do. And after 9/11, and prior to March '03, we should have done more to stop the march to war. Well, I did everything I knew how, but it was not enough. And today we are not doing enough. This is my country. Shame on all of us.
Nader 2000
A quote from your post: "Are some Democrats responsible for Iraq? Absolutely. But at a deeper level, we all are."
I really, really object to your characterisation of all Americans being "responsible for Iraq". I sure to hell wasn't. When did anybody give ME a choice about whether Bush would invade Iraq and torture innocents? That's like blaming the actions of a thief on those who objected before and after a crime, called the police, and demanded that he be prosecuted, only to discover that the police and all law has been thrown out the window. Thousands and thousands of Americans objected and protested before the invasion, and I was one of them. I didn't vote for GW in any election either. I am guilty of many things because I am responsible for my actions, but the invasion of Iraq is not one of them.
At least direct your "j'accuse" statements to the right parties.
Nader2000, you're wrong about Nader tipping the election to Bush in 2000, but you've obviously drunk Eric Alterman's kool-aid on this bullshit theory so I'm sure there's no turning back. Gore admitted last year to Nader himself that Nader did not cause him to lose, especially since he won the popular vote anyhow. The 579 (official) vote difference in Florida wasn't all attributed to votes for Nader, since several other third party candidates taken together garnered more votes than Nader did. Nader isnt the devil who snuck Bush into office, as Gore himself has admitted, but the Bush crime family of James Baker, Katherine Harris, George H.W., Jeb, and the rightwing Supreme Court that stopped the vote count. It was an electoral coup d'etat and not one engineered by Ralph Nader. Besides, all the Democrats Zunes accurately shows have been complicit in the war crimes of Bush and Cheney are FAR more blameworthy than a thousand Naders picking up a handful of votes in the Diebold-rigged computer voting fiasco. Don't blame Nader, blame them.
Right on keyinside !
Even Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona (the only state he carried)in his 1964 landslide loss to LBJ.
Bill Clinton caused Gore to lose more votes than any other person. Had Clinton admitted to getting blown the story would have disappeared instantly and Gore would have had no problem getting elected by a wide margin.
Two things jump out at me from this article.
1) The way that ratified treaties are treated by our federal government (all three branches) accounts for the most glaring and consistent Constitutional violations of our time. The public is obviously unaware of the import that treaties have on our law, as they sit and watch our government consistently violate treaties (and thus the law) with impunity.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution indicates "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." There you go, plain as day: all ratified treaties (signed by the president, approved by 2/3 of the Senate) are the law of the land -- with the same force of any federal law! Yet just in the past few years, our executive branch dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," our legislative branch purported to grant the president the ability to flout the U.N. Charter at will, and our courts show zero interest in enforcing this law (the Supreme Court has never challenged the president on the ability to wage war because of a separation of powers rationale, in spite of the fact it forces the Court to ignore the plain wording of Article VI)!
Treaties are the law, folks. Not just international law, but U.S. Federal law.
2) When will the public stop being tricked by "intelligence" reports? Intelligence is the single easiest source of information for our federal government to manipulate, as it is the only source over which it has complete control. Like the Iraqi WMD claims, charges of Iranian "meddling" in Iraq are supported only by "intelligence" and nothing else. This should mean to us the same thing as if this claim were not supported at all. Yet, we see this claim adopted wholesale by news outlets and the simpler minds among us.
The next time "intelligence" is cited as a source, don't believe it.
The one thing Bush, Cheney, their congressional republican and democrat supporters, and a good many in the media, can never escape is what they have done. They contributed to the deaths of over a million mostly innocent people, and they seem content to continue the slaughter . . .
They must be held accountable in a court of law.
For those interested in a psychological perspective on the Bush administration's warmongering success (with Congress and the American public), I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It examines how White House messsaging targets five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and offers suggestions for how to counter them. It's available for viewing HERE.
Not only was the 2000 election stolen, but Gore still would have won if he had won HIS HOME STATE OF TENNESSEE.
If you can't get elected after 8 yrs of relative prosperity, you don't deserve to be president.
To the oddly screen-named Nader2000:
Bush wasn't put over the top by Nader because Bush didn't go over the top. The election was flat out stolen, and the further line (frequently heard) that Nader let it get close enough to be stolen is just bizarrely displaced anger. Nader didn't run for "fun" but because the DLC types who subsequently supported Bush's war were already knowable entitities also. I don't say "we" are all to blame because I have no access to power. I have done what I could and you can second guess my judgment all day long in various electoral votes; and I can second guess yours; neither you (I don't suppose) nor I (certainly) could have stopped this train wreck. I don't know what "we" should do next, because I am not at all convinced there's a damn thing we *can* do.
Tell us something that anyone who was paying attention doesn't already know. There was a mountain of evidence prior to the resolution that Iraq had nothing in the way of weapons of mass destruction. All of this was ignored by our Senators as well as our impotent mainstream press. Those who gave us this disaster should not be able to explain their way out of it using ignorance as an excuse.
The Bush Administration and their supporters had well established long before Oct. 2002 that their representations were not to be trusted. They had literally lied and/or intentionally misinformed the Congress and the population at large about everything from the true motivations of their economic policy, social security agenda, educational and electoral "reform" designed to undermine them, the "Patriot Act" to undermine civil liberties and the Constitution,and environmental policy, etc. So, the Democrats should not have been merely skeptical, but disbelieving about the information presented to them by the Administration.
Only those with something to gain start wars.
War for gain is armed robbery.
Wise people of past generations regarded it as a Crime Against Humanity.
Past generations actually hunted down the instigators of wars of aggression and put them on trial with the best defense lawyers around, and then after finding them guilty of Crimes Against Humanity they hanged the perps by the neck until they were dead. And I would like to add that for you Christians out there those same perps are now in what you call Hell.
Is not allowing such acts to be committed in your name also called aiding and abetting?
This makes anyone who is not actively working against these monsters accomplices.
Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight.
Hints to democrats if they actually wanted to end the war:
1. Revoke the authorization they gave Bush to use force, or,
2. Revoke or amend the war-powers act, or,
3. Set a deadline to withdraw the troops, or,
4. Declare war against Iraq.
Now, number 4 might seem a little odd, but actually it is not. Congress foolishly abdicated their constitutional war-declaring ability to the executive branch. Now, by declaring war, they can also be empowered to perhaps declare peace.....
Everything Zunes says about the 2002 resolution and the availability, at the time, of sufficient information and reasons to inform a No vote, is entirely correct.
What I can't accept is the implication that this is any kind of good reason for furthering the wreckage of progressive politics in this country by going once again down the road of ineffective protest or unrealistic third-party or independent candidacies.
Sure, we should do everything to support the progressive candidacy for president of Kucinich, and the at least untainted candidacy of Obama, against Hillary Clinton; and even though Edwards is running to the left, I don't trust him and don't forgive him for the war vote. And we should certainly support progressive challengers to Congressional Democrats who have supported the war (and other bad things).
But if Clinton still wins the nomination, it's going to be a choice between her and Giuliani, or someone just as bad. You know who Giuliani's top foreign policy advisor is? Norman Podhoretz. You want to find out where we're going under a Giuliani administration?
I don't forgive the Congressional Democrats (and it's less than half of them, actually) who supported the war resolution, and neither do I forgive Ralph Nader and the people who made his 2000 candidacy into the spoiler that put Bush over the top.
Just as the Congressional Dems had enough information available to know what the consequences of the Iraq resolution would be, Nader and his supporters had plenty of information available about who George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their crew were, and what they would try to do if they won power. But all they could think of was how much they hated Clinton and Gore, and how much fun it was to pretend that Nader's stirring rhetoric was going to lead somewhere.
Are some Democrats responsible for Iraq? Absolutely. But at a deeper level, we all are. Let me tell you, nobody worked harder than I did to try to stop that vote and avert this war. But I am an American, and I am ashamed.
Forgive and forget?
That's easy - just repudiate the debt and raise the dead!
Surely our Theocracy can perform that parlor trick. We all know what happens to False Gods.
You are so right on this and to see now that a majority of democratic voters apparently support Hillary Clinton means they have learned nothing at all. She is the chief enabler of George W. Bush and would be a terrible choice.
Just for the record; I voted for Nader in 2000; Kerry in 2004; I regret the latter vote; neither did any good.