Debate tonight

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Debate tonight
303
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:54pm
So, what did everybody think? This debate was my first (missed last yr's) and I enjoyed it. I liked how they were both respectful to each other and professional. No sighing, making facial expressions, slouching etc. I can't wait for the vp debates. :) XOXO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:08pm
independentgrrl I find it a little surprising that you've not heard about this before.

The resolution is almost two years old.

Anyway here's the info you wanted.

Please investigate further.

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

Tom Daschle:

Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force

October 8, 2002

Mr. President, we are now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this chamber in many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown that he will be bound neither by conscience, nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether, and under what conditions, the Congress should authorize the pre-emptive use of American military power to remove the threat he poses.

These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have profound consequences -- for our nation, for our allies, for the war on terrorism, and -- perhaps most importantly -- for the men and women in our armed forces who could be called to risk their lives because of our decisions.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded neighbors, supported terrorists, and repressed and murdered his own people. Over the last several months, as the world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.

For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq's arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.

Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the Administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The seeming desire of this Administration to wage war alone -- without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress -- was wrong.

Many of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- made it clear that such unilateralism was not in the nation's best interests. I commend the President for changing his approach and acknowledging the importance of working with our allies. I also commend him for recognizing that under our Constitution, it is Congress that authorizes the use of force, and for requesting a resolution providing such authority. And I applaud my colleagues -- Democrats and Republicans, in the House and Senate -- for the improvements they have made to the Administration's original resolution. Four changes were especially critical:

First: Instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action "in the region,'' as the Administration originally sought, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq. It no longer authorizes -- nor should it be used to try to justify -- the use of force against other nations, organizations or individuals that the President may believe threaten peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region. It is a strong and focused response to a specific threat. It is not a template or model for any other situation.

Second: This resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress, and of the American people, that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament. But whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam, should military action eventually be needed.

Third: This resolution makes it clear that, before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, and that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Fourth: This resolution protects the balance of power by requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act and to report to Congress at least every 60 days "on matters relevant to this resolution.'' This resolution gives the President the authority he needs to confront the threat posed by Iraq. It is a fundamentally different and better resolution than the one the President sent us. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1011senate.htm

Here's another link to the actual voting information

http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/congress_approves_war.html

edited to include link


Edited 10/1/2004 6:16 pm ET ET by blueishxx

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:15pm
<< Did you hear the comments Bush made to Lehrer at the end saying he wished he had him for all the debates? >>

Can't say I did. Maybe he truly thought so or he was just being nice...polite. Don't know, but others had a problem with the questions. I seem to recall there being a problem with Mr. Lehrer's questions in a 2000 debate. Well, it's one of 3 between Bush & Kerry, so we'll see how the other 2 go (plus the VP debate).

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/1/93858.shtml

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning

PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.

"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus in his only post-debate interview.

"I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific."

The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance.

Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions focused largely on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq – while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.

At one point Lehrer claimed that over 10,000 U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.

At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand – with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink.

In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years.

In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's re-election team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.



iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:25pm
So Jim Lehrer is the next to taste the back of Karl Rove's hand.

Bush has had people making excuses on his behalf for most of his adult life.

Why should it stop now?

He's only the President of the United States after all.

Why should he have a grasp of National Security issues and be able to express himself clearly?

It must be someone else's fault.

It can't be Bush's fault.

Pathetic.

Truly pathetic.

You know this kind of stuff makes Bush look desperate, right?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:49pm
>>At one point Lehrer claimed that over 10,000 U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.<<

Just spotted this in the newsmax (eyeroll) article you posted.

Now this is weak.

I watched the debate and it was obvious Lehrer misspoke and quickly corrected himself.

This is utter crap journalism.
Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:59pm
Get real. You decry my statement about the "coalition of the willing" while your stats say more than enough to support the point I'm making. For whatever the reasons these countries have sent troops or supplies, whether through bribery or political pressure or humanitarian purposes, nothing I can say can match the pure gall and exploitation exercised by Bush on their behalf.

The insult to these countries comes not from my words but from the mouth of Bush. His words stand in mockery of what defines a coalition, their numbers display their lackluster support. Bush makes the coalition out to be some "dream team" but any fool can see this is a US war. The British have deployed troops that actually get involved in fighting, but the majority of the British people want their troops brought home.

The same is true of the Danish and Norwegian troops. The people in those countries were never in agreement with sending the troops and they want them home. Who knows if the peoples of Poland, El Salvador and the others have ever been asked whether they support the troop deployments.

Check your own list. How many of those countries make decisions that reflect people's opinions or have democratically elected assemblies?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:03pm

Sorry, but it'll take more than a bit of showmanship for Kerry to upset me. The debate was pretty much as was expected -- Kerry performed well & Bush was the straight shooter that he is.


What Kerry did not do was lay out a PLAN for apparently doing everything Bush is doing only better. He has also managed to contradict himself at every turn. Last night he

Renee ~~~

Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:18pm
And you assume that your war doesn't effect other countries? I have as much right to voice an opinion about this US war as anyone else. I just don't get a chance to vote against the misuses of power.

"The efforts of ONE SINGLE PERSON who is willing to risk their life for the freedom of another should be respected and admired." That, however, is not the question. These are not individuals who are enlisting their services to defend others, they were sent there by executive order. If Bush or Wolfowitz were in Iraq, leading the troops, putting themselves at risk, I might agree with your point. But they're not, nor have either of them ever served in such a capacity. They are having others put their lives at risk for their own purposes. Where is the honor in that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:23pm
Welcome

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:36pm

Economics obviously isn't your forte. 'Trickle down' economics did, in fact, work in the Reagan administration, but

Renee ~~~

Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:40pm
Poland was not my addendum, it was Bush's. Didn't you follow the debate?

You are confusing the issue. Due to the nature of this war and the strangle hold on the media by the military we have few, if any, chances to evaluate the true nature of what is happening in Iraq. What is evident, however, is that a few soldiers from a few countries are being sent to fight or support a war the peoples of their own countries do not support. At least, we know that much from the countries involved who allow their people to voice an opinion. (Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Norway to name a few)

The shame is not on the soldiers but on the governments who coerce, or allow themselves to be coerced, for support of a war that arose from a figment of imagination. Read up on what Ike Eisenhower said about the responsibility of sending troops into battle.

If bringing up this issue brings shame on me, then so be it. I was maybe mistaken is assuming that this issue was debatable.

Pages