–updated–
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Poor Speaker Pelosi. Karma’s come back to bite her. Or actually it’s not Karma, it’s Bart.
But she shouldn’t feel bad, Pres. Obama’s got his own problems. He started solving them late yesterday by patting progressives on the head, while asking them to save his presidency by passing a bad health care bill.
No one is arguing that Democrats want to pass a health care bill. The Democrats just shouldn’t want to pass one that is as bad as the Senate bill, which Obama has embraced. From Greg Sargent we hear Pres. Obama told progressive members that the public option cannot pass. Great response from Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s Adam Green:
Obama is telling America, “No, we can’t.” But we’ve been showing more and more each day, “Yes, we can” pass the public option. If President Obama doesn’t think the votes exist in the Senate, he needs to name which senators would oppose it. If he can’t or won’t, there’s no reason for House progressives to be part of the White House’s loser mentality.
Again, the only part of health care reform people like is the public option. Additionally, the current Senate bill sets women back; even as we already pay more for health care than men, usually having to jump through hoops to get it; now shoving us into a stacked insurance system without choice, with convoluted rules on receiving full reproductive health care.
I’d like to see Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats offer only the public option, with nothing else, then see if Republicans go against it, with the public supporting it. We’d turn the 2010 elections on its head. As Obama said to progressives about the Senate bill, expecting them to believe him. We’re only at “the beginning of health care reform, not the end of it — and that we will fix it later, as we have with Social Security and Medicare…” Why couldn’t the same thing be said for the public option?
We all know the answer. Pres. Obama’s a likable guy. He’s just not a leader or a fighter, and we’re at a moment in history when we need both.
Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is finally facing a monster of her own making. On the way to getting the House bill passed, she aided and abetted Rep. Bart Stupak turning him into the Democratic version of Rep. Henry Hyde, the man who concocted the Hyde Amendment, but also led Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s. His cause was ending all abortions, but since Griswold and Roe he could only wield his religious obsessions in legislation. Mr. Stupak now carries Hyde’s torch, which is currently causing Speaker Pelosi a slow burn.
But never fear, Amy Sullivan has some advice for Speaker Pelosi, whom Ms. Sullivan judges is being too harsh on Mr. Stupak and company. Talk to them like idiots; say something like this:
“I understand that’s how some of my colleagues interpret the language of the Senate bill. I see it differently, but I do respect their concerns.”
Right, because after Mrs. Pelosi invited Catholic Church reps into the room the first time around to help craft the abortion language in the House bill, making Mr. Stupak a household name, the Democrats’ Henry Hyde needs to be coddled more.
If you’re a Democrat and haven’t figured it out yet it’s time you woke up to smell the hypocrisy. The party that expects women to support them every election is not only botching health care, but they’ve coddled and created an anti abortion zealot in their own party who’s crusading against a legal reproductive procedure that the courts have already settled, which the Democrats used to champion as part of women’s self-determination that the Democrats said they’d protect.
In case you weren’t keeping score, the Democrats have set women’s rights back during the health care debate by negotiating down when they’ve got all the power.
Segue to Katha Pollitt, who often goes a little far off the cliff for me, but on this point is dead on:
What one rarely sees is a reconfiguration of liberal premises to put women’s rights, interests, needs, and priorities at the center. Indeed, the rise of conservative Christianity has caused far too many liberals to dream that benign neglect of women’s rights (reproductive rights especially), gay rights, and church/state separation would make possible some grand economic-progressive alliance for a new New Deal. It is still a little shocking to me that Barack Obama invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration—Rick Warren, who not only opposes legal abortion and gay marriage, but also believes God commands wives to obey their husbands and forbids divorce to battered women. …
Democrats have the White House and the majority in Congress, and we helped put them there.
But our issues have no champions among Democrats anymore.
The title of this article has been changed.
“Public option” was the immediate step-down from “single payer,” as “health insurance reform” was from “health care reform.” The direction was clear, and it was to the right.
I feel like a broken record — since the start of this health care debacle I have believed that no real reform would be implemented. As it has unfolded, it has evolved into a nightmare that promises to be even worse than the badly broken health care system we started with.
At the start we lost control of the language by talking about a public option — we should have started with a bold plan to extend Medicare to everyone — a public plan, easy to understand, requiring only a few pages to specify — offering a private option to the diehards who like to have their health care decisions made by corporate bureaucrats appointed by CEOs over whom they have no control.
But we squandered that opportunity. All of us are now on our own — men and women. Coupled with the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections, the coming midterm Republican tsunami may well represent the final and irrevocable destruction of the last remnants of a democratic government in the U.S.
But our issues have no champions among Democrats anymore.
Word.
There hasn’t been a “democratic government in the U.S.” for at least 60 years. But, we do have the best corporatist (also known as fascist) government that their money can buy us. Health care? Who needs health care? Not us. Not when they’re killing us off with unsafe cars and nuclear waste and an adulterated food supply and carbon saturated air and unclean water and endless wars fighting against pretend enemies. Peace
Daches says:
05 March 2010 at 10:10 am
“I feel like a broken record…”
I’d guess a lot of us feel that way, about health care and most everything else, certainly including Taylor’s point about women’s right.
Taylor: “But our issues have no champions among Democrats anymore.”
Weezie, I second your “word.” It’s why I finally chose to go the “independent” route several years ago, though in TN, and TX, options are very limited, and I end up voting Dem most of the time.
Imhotep:
I highly recommend the novel “Jennifer Government”. It is creepily portentious, like “The Handmaid’s Tale” (but not as well written as that – no one writes like Margaret Atwood).
There will come a day when your life will be governed completely by the corporation that owns you from birth to death. We are so so so close to it now.
Let’s posit that in 2012, Obama runs for reelection and the GOP manages to strongarm Palin out of the primary. Let’s also posit that Clinton and Palin meet, become friends, come to an agreement on a set of policy issues and agree to disagree on (and de-emphasize) the rest. If faced with a Clinton/Palin Independent ticket in 2012, do you think many liberals and democrats would put aside their misgivings about Palin in order to have a chance at a Clinton presidency?
It doesn’t seem like this option is a favorite for conservatives and Repubs either, but I wonder if it could garner a plurality in a three-way race.
Taking you seriously, alwaysfiredup, whether you are or not…
Hillary Rodham Clinton is done with politics, according to her statements to media.
Sarah Palin’s unlikely to settle for vice president, with her presidential dreams alive, though she’s still got to prove herself over the next year or so to be taken seriously over someone like Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama will run for re-election, as he should, with there still a long way before 2012 and many chances for Pres. Obama to re-invigorate his presidency, especially since there is no evidence Rep. can beat him at this point.
Beyond these points, the Democratic party has proven they will not fight for women or our issues. It’s time for each female voter, and feminist male, to let that settle in. As it does no good to elect Dems if they’re going to betray their supporters’ trust.
Of course, the right is worse for women’s rights, against self-determination for women all together, with many against Ledbetter as well.
Politically, women are on their own, with no immediate remedy. It’s sobering and makes pondering options and what to do about it tough.
This Liberal won’t. The reason I didn’t vote for Hillary the last time was because she voted “Yes” to invade and occupy Iraq. That vote showed me that she was either as stupid as a stump or a calculating politician who could not be trusted on any issue. Were she to team up with Palin it you convince me that Hillary was a stupid, calculating politician who I would not trust to wash my car. Peace
The notion that Hillary Rodham Clinton would “team up with Palin” is LUDICROUS. It’s truly stunning people still don’t know who she is.
As for the reason you didn’t vote for Hillary, Imhotep, your reasoning is valid (though you don’t need me to tell you that) and was felt by many others.
Taylor: “Politically, women are on their own, with no immediate remedy. It’s sobering and makes pondering options and what to do about it tough.”
Soberly pondering bad options presented by Electeds who routinely betray — that describes me, as a woman and feminist. More generally, it describes me as a liberal, more specifically, it describes me as a lesbian.
Thanks for this sobering and thoughtful post.
You bet, Joyce. It’s a real tough position for women.
NOW, THIS ISN’T TO GET INTO A PRIMARY PIE FIGHT… but is worth noting. This betrayal issue brings me back to the dozens and dozens of crazed puma emails I got after Hillary lost the nomination. Every single one stipulating that the Democratic party had abandoned women, simply because of Hillary’s loss, which the puma crowd attributed to some massive plot. They were wrong, obviously.
However, it’s a bit ironic that when push came to shove during the health care debate, not only did so called “progressive” women allow the rise of a new Henry Hyde inside the Democratic majority, but leaders like Pelosi and Obama aided and abetted Stupak and others, pushing the party to the right at a time when Democrats have the power.
Stunning development.
Taylor, I should also make the point that I voted against Hillary and John McCain and NOT for Obama. Although I did cast a vote to help elect Obama. Peace
Thanks Imhotep, point taken. I think your vote proves the point I continually make that if someone perceives he/she has two bad choices, the least offensive wins. Though in 2008, I voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama, but only on foreign policy issues, as I thought McCain-Palin was not a choice at all.
“Democrats have the White House and the majority in Congress, and we helped put them there.
But our issues have no champions among Democrats anymore.”
Yes, some of us remember how you went in the tank for Obama. Frankly, if no one champions your issues you have no one to blame but yourself. You chose not to support the candidate who did champion your issues.
My beef is that I now have to live with the results of your bad judgment.
craigdp says:
05 March 2010 at 11:27 am
You think McCain-Palin would have championed women’s interests?
Ah yes, the puma crowd chimes in with their one-half sense (pun intended).
People living in reality know that there was no one who fought harder for Hillary up until SHE CONCEDED TO OBAMA AND JOINED HIS CAMPAIGN. Are you going to blame Hillary for this too?
You all still don’t get it.
Because the title was changed……Obama is about to be pounded, again. By forcing Holder to reverse himself (proving that the Justice Department is not actually independent) and try KSM in a military tribunal outside NYCity rather than in a civilian trial in that city the Left will go after Obama hammer and tongs. This pounding will happen regadless of the fact that Obama traded the civilian trial for money to close Guantanamo and buy a federal prison to house the Gitmo detainees in the USA. Why Obama continues to put himself into these lose, lose political situations is a mystery. Maybe it has something to do with his idiot chief of staff Rahm? Peace
Craig does get it. He is trying to convince us that if we had voted for McCain and the wingnut-from-Waslila-who-happened-to-have-a-vagina, everything would have been better for women.
He gets it, he just thinks we don’t get it.
Yep, Imhotep, my email inbox is on tilt.
Weeze2008, you wouldn’t believe the hateful emails I *still* get from the unhinged puma people. It would be humorous if these people didn’t actually vote.
Imhotep,
By far the most disappointing, depressing thing about this administration has been its performance on terrorism, the wars, and abuses of rights.
“You all still don’t get it.”
No, actually the reverse is true. To many of us Obama was an obvious non-starter and we were outraged by the backroom deals that were made to ram him to the nomination.
The part you don’t get is that Obama is, and always was, nothing but a corporate tool.
And, since you bring it up, McCain may not be a champion of womens’ rights but he would have made a better president than the clown in office now. At least McCain has a verifiable record as a reformer (McCain-Feingold, for one).
Now all we have is GWB III, how is that better?
Weezie2008, what the corporations and the Zionists want, the corporations and Zionists get and “we the people be damned.” That will be true for a while longer, but not forever. Bet on it. Peace
Anybody see the Bob Casey interview Wednesday? If so how do you all feel about “stimulus funds” going overseas to create jobs?
craigdp, you’re just flat wrong about McCain being a better president. McCain is insane. Has been since the Viet Cong almost tortured him to death way back when. Obama is a corporatist, but at least he’s sane. I’ll take the sane person over the insane person every time. Peace
kris, how’s things? Any better? So you don’t think that multi-national corporations deserve to get stimulas money? How about Blackwater? I agree with you. They should all be cut off immediately. Peace
craigdp says:
05 March 2010 at 11:48 am
McCain may not be a champion of womens’ rights…
“May not?” He has against equal pay for women in Ledbetter AND against women’s self-determination. PLUS, McCain’s incompetence rang out loud and clear when he said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” AS LEHMAN BROTHERS WAS TANKING.
Additionally, you act as if Hillary Clinton didn’t know the system during the primary season. Clinton was *not* a victim of anyone, except her own campaign staff, particularly Mark Penn. But guess what, Hillary had choices to make there, too.
The part you don’t get is that Obama is, and always was, nothing but a corporate tool.
Excuse me? This is laugh out loud hilarious. You obviously didn’t read this blog during the primaries, though I’d take exception with the word “tool,” because candidates at the presidential level *all* genuflect to corporate interests. It’s our political system.
Almost no one wrote about Obama’s flyover in early 2007, which said a lot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-nevada-flyover_b_41455.html
Almost no one wrote about his associations with Exelon, not to mention his lies to Iowa voters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-hearts-nuke-giant-e_b_84824.html
Don’t you dare lecture me about what I didn’t do during the primaries. People around here were witness to my unabashed candor where candidate Obama was concerned.
But voting McCain-Palin? You’re a child.
This rehash primary conversation is over.
TM:
This was my go-to site for information that took a critical look at Obama the candidate, but without the hateful foaming at the mouth and crazy conspiracy theories.
Funny how that works. You were really, deeply skeptical of Obama. I mean you really took his ass apart. But, since you never called him an Islamosociofascistdummyickyblackguymarxist, your skepticism does not count to the PUMAs.
LOL. We are doomed. Sign number 920,328,915,678 of the apocalypse: Being a crazy asshole about an issue has more intellectual currency than sober analysis.
Thanks Weeze2008, I appreciate it very much, though it won’t make a dent with the unhinged puma fringe.
Hey Imhotep -
Better but not great. Long story, to long to write about here.
CRAIGDP -
You have NO F…ING critical thinking skills.
kris, no lose of limbs was involved I hope?
Peace
No limbs, loss of job.
Hang in there, kris. As always, good to see you ’round here.
Thanks Taylor.
I will just say this….don’t believe the unemployment numbers generated by the Dept. of Labor. Don’t let anyone tell you that job prospects are getting better. If they do tell them bullshit.
And it’s just not me who knows that from being a “boot on the ground”.
kris…so sorry you have joined the ranks of the unemployed. It is frighting how many smart,capable people are. I have been reading elsewhere that many in the scientific community are losing jobs in large numbers with the merging of pharmacutical companies. They have no hope of things changing for them. All that education and accomplishment going to waste..just terrible.
Here is Chris hedges take on the current state of things. He was a highly respected reporter for the NYT who quit in protest over their handling of the rush to the Iraq war. He has gone underground and written a book on the Christian Right so he has deep understanding of them. I am starting to think his prescription is the one to follow. I don’t think it is enough to simply drop one’s registration as a Democrat and re register as an Independent. That in of itself is repeatedly misread by the media and both parties as a right leaning idea.
I have had it with the Dems and I am looking for a third party. I would not be in the wilderness any more than I am now within the Party and I would be putting my energy where my beliefs are at least respected.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/
The democrats cannot get anything done. I have been a democrat all my life and I cannot believe that they were given everything and did nothing. I don’t believe the health care bill will pass maybe I am wrong, there is too many people against it. Alot of people don’t understand it. Alot of things in this country care broken and its seems its not getting fixed just getting worse.
I think the writing is on the wall – Progressives are being setup to eat the Senate bill with a Stupak garnish. When I heard the O was meeting with the so-called House Progressives I figured he was getting them ready to bend over, grab their ankles and swallow. They are the ones that are gonna take the hit on this – it most certainly wouldn’t be the blue-dogs.
Re: Taylor’s update to the title of her post – well that’s to be expected. The problem is most folks I agree with already see his Presidency as over – we are just in a Death March till he looses re-election and leaves office.
Point to mwfulsom, see Hoyer:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/85097-hoyer-dems-could-create-separate-abortion-bill-to-satisfy-stupak
You know what I’m wondering is where the hell is NARAL and its allies?
Have they just become politically incompetent?
mwfolsom…yes!
anybody who watched the primaries knew that Obama really doesnt care much for women. He showed that time and again. As far as women’s issues, of course, he doesnt care because he doenst care about ANY issues. He’s an empty suit with no core values.
My post up now on Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/if-dems-appease-stupak-pe_b_487763.html
Taylor Marsh says:
05 March 2010 at 3:38 pm
My post up now on Huffington:
Great post, Taylor.
kris says:
05 March 2010 at 12:21 pm
I will just say this….don’t believe the unemployment numbers generated by the Dept. of Labor. Don’t let anyone tell you that job prospects are getting better. If they do tell them bullshit.
Kris, I am one hundred percent with you on this one. Including in the unemployed status — it’s a nightmare. Good luck to you.
This Liberal won’t. The reason I didn’t vote for Hillary the last time was because she voted “Yes” to invade and occupy Iraq. That vote showed me that she was either as stupid as a stump or a calculating politician who could not be trusted on any issue. Were she to team up with Palin it you convince me that Hillary was a stupid, calculating politician who I would not trust to wash my car. Peace
I don’t know how anybody with an average IQ, can read Senator Clinton’s October 10, 2002 floor speech and conclude that her vote was a pro war vote and a vote to goto war.
October 10, 2002
Senator Clinton: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
October 08 – 10, 2002
Mr. KERRY : My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I’m voting for you to do what you said you’re going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process.
Mr. KENNEDY :The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.
Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war
Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake.
Mr. DODD: As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities
Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President’s advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq’s violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.
Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel–the White House counsel–reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq–there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be–to use the slang on the east side of my city–“in a world of hurt” if he attempted to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don’t need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don’t need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.
Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.
It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France’s veto.
Mr. KOHL. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq.
Mr. BAUCUS. Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force.
Mr. JEFFORDS: We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives
Mr. DASCHLE: Second, the 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 U.N. 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, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America’s national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions
Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.
That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.
Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.
Mr. BAYH. I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort–as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night–to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action
Mr. BYRD. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.
We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.
Mr. BIDEN. only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now.
NOTE: The Levin Amendment would of gave veto power over the United States to France, Russia and China. IWR was meant to send a strong message to Saddam “you better comply” and he did
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration’s approach–turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq’s disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.
Mr. KENNEDY. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now–and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
http://aumf.awardspace.com/
Additionally, you act as if Hillary Clinton didn’t know the system during the primary season. Clinton was *not* a victim of anyone, except her own campaign staff, particularly Mark Penn. But guess what, Hillary had choices to make there, too.
What flavor of coolaid are you drnking, Hillary lost because the democratic party is not very democratic. The media was hellbent to defeat Clinton and played favorites to Obama and the greed and backstabing against Hillary by the leadership of the party and the gaming of the system by the DNC.