*** THE WAR STARTS TUESDAY! ***

MAY OUR SOLDIERS BE SAFE AND AS FEW OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE DIE AS POSSIBLE FOR THEIR LIBERATION!

MyDD, your blurb implies that Dean is Carter. Not so, according to the article. It could be Edwards.

Edwards has big cojones, giving that speech to that crowd of loonies. Gary South, who understands Democratic politics in California better than anyone, said it better than anyone:

"The Democrats in this hall are not particularly representative of the larger Democratic electorate," South said, adding that on the war, "We have to be very careful on how we present the party."

Carter wasn't practically boo-ed off stage...

Actually, he was ignored and dissed in California, and he won anyway.

Californians really don't understand how ludicrous they seem to the rest of the US, do they?

Doesn't Dean have to hope for a long war? I mean opposition to the war is what is getting the crowds on their feet right now. What gets them on their feet in January of 2004? The focus will probably be back on the other issues (economy, judges, health care, Ashcroft, environment). Dean has to hope that the average Dem primary voter will still be angy about the war many months after it is long over.

KB, Dean talks about the war, but he also talks a lot about economic & health care stuff. Dean is not a one issue wonder. He's also criticizing Bush directly while some Dems still tiptoe. I think almost all the Dems running are great people and would probably make great candidates but they need to grow a bit of backbone.

Kerry and Edwards have not pulled any punches from Bush when it comes to the economy or healthcare, or the environment. Dean can't claim to be the only real Democrat in this race. Edwards voted against the Bush tax giveaway. Kerry has vowed to filibuster ANWR drilling. Edwards has been a sharp critic of Bush judicial nominees. I really believe that the war is what is creating this division in the field right now, and that should the war be over in a reasonable time, the Dem 2004 race will shift again. It may shift many times before the first primary.

KB, yeah, I think that the current political climate with respect to the war is to Dean's advantage.

But that's a little different than saying that Dean "has to hope for a long war." I mean, I'm sure it was a figure of speech, but if you parse what you said literally, it's obviously wrong. I'm sure Dean hopes the war is over as quickly and painlessly as everyone else.

Except those freepers for whom the whole point of the war is to intimidate the Arab world into shutting up. For them, the more Arabs killed, the better.

Many people are falsely assuming Dean is getting support because of his stand on the Iraq situation. No question he has gained attention and some support there. But those of us who've been following his progress for several months know that his forte is domestic issues, like health care and balanced budget and education. And his appeal comes from the fact that he's tough, he will fight Bush hard and will not back down when attacked by the right. His Iraq stand is getting the most press, but it's completely a mistake to think he's that "anti-war candidate." I honestly think he'd be much happier if Iraq is done with quickly so he can get out his real message. He's a solid candidate who happens to be against this particular war at this particular time.

Agreed. I meant that in order to sustain the current dynamic, the war would have to come to be seen as a failure, or at least seen that way by a majority of Democratic voters. Did not mean to imply that Dean wants it to go badly for US troops, etc. Not at all. But I think the current debate shows how much more the Democrats would have to lose if this were happening next year instead of now. Then it really would be 1968 all over again.

Right now it seems there's a chance the war as an issue will prove a temporary phenomenon.

"Edwards has big cojones, giving that speech to that crowd of loonies."

Could this have been Edwards' "Sister Souljah" moment? I'm a Dean supporter, and question Edwards' rationale for running, but the boy has now proven he's got a nutsack.

Ah, KB, that's where I think CW is wrong. CW is that people fear a horrible war, and if it goes well, everyone will see that Bush is right. Many people are lukewarm about this war because they're not sure if we have our priorities straight. Many have concerns about whether this war is right, particularly whether it sets a reasonable precedent. And others have legitimate concerns about poisoned international relations, which is already damage done. My impression is that most people think it will be quick and easy (but of course do have fears about it). So I don't see a quick and easy victory changing everyone's mind. This isn't 1991 when we freed an invaded country with the support of the entire world and got out. It's politically a much tougher situation.

-"Doesn't Dean have to hope for a long war? I mean opposition to the war is what is getting the crowds on their feet right now. What gets them on their feet in January of 2004? The focus will probably be back on the other issues (economy, judges, health care, Ashcroft, environment)."-

No. Not at all. It will still be the Iraq war or the Iraq debacle as the world will be calling it.{:-(

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

Does anyone know if there's a transcript of Dean's speech currently available? I've checked the Ca Dem website and Dean's homepage.

On the war...I do expect it to be over by the primaries, though we may start to see suicide attacks, etc. against the US occupying force. But if the war issue will fade, the other candidates' timidity about confronting Bush and taking risks will remain. And I don't think we can win that way. I fully expected to be a Kerry supporter, and it's not impossible that he would win me back--he's a perfectly solid candidate who I think would make a damn good president. But I'm working for Dean right now.

Check out a video of Dean speaking at a JJ dinner before last year midterms...thats what he'll be like when iraq is over. Thats a good thing

cspan has bush/blair/aznar right now, they're taking questions.

Just watched Edwards on CSPAN. I thought he did very well, and maybe you had to be in the hall, but the boos at the Iraq section did not throw him off. He made his points right over them, and rebounded with a strong finish. Overall Edwards held Bush's feet to the fire. He slammed Bush on every domestic issue. This talk of Republican lite is simply misinformed.

If you voted for Iraq your not a Democrat! That seems to be the left wing mantra. Who cares about the rest of your record off with his head. I am voting for Gephardt who seems to be coming up with some damn good ideas on how to fix the mess were in

Just watched the Edwards and Dean speeches in Cali on C-SPAN. Edwards did fine, but I have NEVER seen such passion, fire, and anger in a politician that I saw in Dean. This guy's got it, and we need to harness it to win the election.

Edwards isn't bad, he's just not ready for prime time yet.

GaDem - For the record, I have no problems with Edwards, Kerry, or Gephardt. All of them would get my entusiastic vote in a general election. The thing that stands out about Dean is that he's a fighter. Not only does he show this when he speaks, but he shows this when he doesn't back down when attacked. With the way Republicans play ball, that's who I want running my team.

I watched the cspan speeches and I have to say I think a little better of Edwards now. He knew he was in rough territory and he did well.

Dean, though! Dude! Incredible! Y'all should watch it if you haven't yet.

And then cspan showed another Dean interview, a very easy one in which he did well. Clearly they think people are curious about Dean...

As a delegate at the CA Dem Convention, let me assure you that it is a mistake to assume that we're just a bunch of Berkeley ex-hippies whose views on these candidates should be dismissed or, even worse, discounted such that candidates whose response by delegates was less enthusiastic is better positioned.

The 1800 delegates, while perhaps marginally more liberal than the Democratic primary electorate, come from all parts of the state and represent a variety of professions, ideologies, and backgrounds. As a young private sector professional who is fiscally moderate, I certainly do not consider myself the liberal bogeyman that even Mr. South (who may be bitter that his beloved Gray Davis is scarcely more popular than Charles Manson, even among Democrats) apparently believes was haunting the Sacramento Convention Center.

I was in the hall when Governor Dean spoke. I came to the Convention undecided on the race, leaning toward Kerry, interested in Dean, intrigued by Edwards and Graham, disgusted in Gephardt and Lieberman (anecdotal evidence suggests I was far from alone in that view). Dean was incredible. He said what a good 85-90% of the delegates were thinking then and had been thinking for years. He connected, not just with radicals, not just with liberals, but with Democrats. He showed passion and, yes, aggression, that has been unfortunately lacking among Democrats, particularly since the late Clinton Administration. Dean showed that he is willing to fight the Republicans in a way that goes beyond rhetoric to a visceral belief both that we are right and that we must be victorious.

I have not decided conclusively to join Dean's camp. I still like John Kerry. I dream about a debate where Kerry opens up a can of whoop-a&* all over Bush about military service. But now I, and I suspect many many delegates, will be taking a hard look at Dean, inviting him to our communities, giving him money, praising him to our friends and acquaintances.

The story of the 2003 California Democratic Convention is Howard Dean.

*** see next post***

***continued***

Maybe I'm a bit defensive since I've been suffering through several years now where the White House has been treating California like a foreign country, with the media its close ally. Maybe I'm a bit defensive since a disturbingly large amount of the commentary about the Convention is that the delegates liked the aggressive anti-war, liberal candidates more than the less aggressive anti-war(?), liberals/moderates because they're just crazy radical Californians who don't have much credence for the nomination, let alone the general election. Actually, now that I think more about it, hell yes, I am very defensive!

California is the single most important state in the Union on virtually every score by virtue of its population and economic position as the world's 5th largest economy, but no more important than in the context of selecting the Democratic nominee for President. When you combine our population and our great Democratic victories for Clinton and Gore, we will have a presence in Boston next year that exceeds even our 13% of the U.S. population. So before people start saying that what Californians have to say doesn't mean jack (sounds very Bush/Rove-like), someone (shame, shame, Mr. South) ought to take a long look at the numbers.

When it comes to the general election, California has voted with the winner of the Presidential election in every election since 1980 (including, of course, Gore in 2000). As California has become more Democratic, the road to the Presidency for a Democrat comes directly through California and its 55 electoral votes.

OK, got that off my chest . . . .

CADem - you're right, and whichever Democrat wins the nomination, will get those votes, so why don't we nominate someone who can appeal to the rest of the Country. Unless our nominee is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he or she is going to win California in the general.

Therefore, I would prefer to let those in the Birkenstocks enjoy their party for a while, and work on nominating the guy who can win Tennessee or North Carolina or Nevada or New Hampshire or Ohio or Wisconsin or Kentucky.

We do that, we win.

THat guy is not Howard Dean, not if he keeps running on the war.

While Dean has veered left from what is really a fairly conservative resume, and Kerry has waffled so much I half expect hiim to have his prostate put back in because he can't make up his mind, I think Edwards has had the same position since last Summer.

"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein, militarily if necessary, and with those countries who will support us -- but if I were President, instead of W., we'd have a lot more people behind us."

Sounds good to me. The guy's on the Intelligence Committee. He knows more about the situation than I do, and I trust him.

Man, if it weren't for his and Blair's positions on the war, I'd be calling for impeachment, conviction and exile. That may be a good idea anyway...

Good points all around, DrFrankLives.

I'm just not ready to conclude which candidate appeals best to other states. One minimum requirement, regardless of ideology, is a willingness to confront Bush and try to change the pro-Bush media line that propelled Bush into the White House and is keeping his approval rating at least 10-20 points artificially high. Dean has that, without question. Both Kerry and Edwards had it, at least in their speeches to the Convention, but I am concerned that they may not hold the line. The 800-pound gorilla in the Kerry and Edwards room is the fact that they bought the pro-Bush conventional wisdom and felt like they had to vote to give Bush dictatorial powers regarding Iraq. I would like to think that they won't cave to that inkling again, despite great temptations to do so as the media continues to prop up Bush, but I am concerned.

Also, I'm not sure that anyone, including Edwards, can beat Bush in KY or TN (or, for that matter, NC). The South, with the exception of FL (which is not really southern anyway), is almost certainly lost in 2004 unless Bush completely collapses. I'm not sure why Kerry or Edwards would be more competitive in Ohio or Nevada or Wisconsin than Dean.

Dean is THE true Democrat running. It’s only the warmongers and homophobes that keep dissing him. Our military SHOULD get its ass kicked in Iraq. It will serve the repugs right for attacking a nation that has done nothing to us. Then when the hundreds of bodies start coming home and the thousands of dead Iraqi children are piling up in the streets, America’s idiots will finally understand what their beloved shrub has done to the world. I hope the war goes really bad. I hope the Iraqi oil wells are torched and the price of oil hits $100 a barrel. Than the economy will be in the tank for sure when election time comes around. Dean will be able to benefit bigtime. He will probably have a Democratic congress with him as well in 2005 if everything plays out right in Iraq.

CADem,

The Democratic nominee must play to win in 2004. Pulleeeeze don't write off the south this early. If Dean is to win, he needs a "national strategy", not just a "northern arc strategy" (i.e. Maine/N.Y./Penn./Vt.-to-Wisconsin/Minn./Illinois-to-Wash./Oregon/Calif.

Dean says he wants to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". Good point. But he must also represent the national wing of a President's Party.

No one gets elected by writing off a whole region. Bush only carried Tenn. with 52%, Ga. with only 55%. There are Dem. opportunities.

True, Bush only carried N.H. in New England, and Carter only carried Hawaii west of the Mississippi River--but it wasn't for lack of trying. Carter receive 49% in Calif. in '76 against Ford. He never "wrote off" the west.

My point is not well taken on this board, but the Dem. nominee will need a southern state or two to win in '04. I'm serious. That's why Dean should campaign in Atlanta and Columbus for the Ga. primary on March 2. Tsongas got a respectable 23% in the '92 Ga. primary, which showed he had a national candidacy.

Momentum will come to the first candidate who shows strength outside his home region (except for Hollywood, which transcends boundaries). Sen. Kerry seems to be making progress, with the endorsement from several S.C. legislators.

If Dean is to be the nominee, he must lay down a firemark and do relatively well in a southern state primary or two. By golly, he must play to win. 'Else he doesn't deserve the Democratic nomination for President of the U.S.

I saw him on C-Span. Wow. It was almost surreal, hearing a politician talk that after all these years of caution and worse. Several times I thought, "Did he just SAY that?" And he will undoubtedly tone it down a bit during the war, and I don't think that's entirely a bad thing.

His anti-war position is not so left field or dovish; it is that this war is doing serious damage to our alliances, increases the risk of terrorism, and ignores/worsens bigger threats from Al Qaeda and North Korea--that it makes us less safe. He has said he favored war if that was the only way to keep Hussein from getting nuclear weapons. A view that most people I know share, that most of the world shares, and that I think most Americans would share if they had not been hearing only one side for over six months.

For me, it feels stranger to be a presidential candidate and dodge or sit on the fence about the most pressing issue of the day.

But it could be quick and easy--I hope it is, though I fear that will give the administration too much confidence to start the next war--and I don't know how that will affect Dean. But this is not Gulf War I, where most people's big fear was another Vietnam. Most people are expecting a relatively short war, I think; but they are afraid of losing our allies and alienating the Muslim world and creating new terrorists and ignoring greater threats from Al Qaeda and telling North Korea, "quick, make some nukes or you're next". A quick victory doesn't necessarily solve those problems.

The thing is, though I oppose the war, once we go in there with all the "Shock and Awe" I think we need to finish the job--we can't betray the Iraqi opposition yet again, and kill all those people for no purpose--and build a democracy, just as we should be doing in Afghanistan. We may have a strange reversal where Bush wants to cut and run to the next war, and it's up to the Dem to say, "No, we have to show the world that we can bring good to people and not just rain destruction down on them". I hope Dean is ready to do that.

Whoa. Sorry for the novel.

My analysis on the primary race, not that you asked… First off, I'm not a policy wonk. I pay attention, but I don't care about the dotted I's and the and crossed T's… For that I rely upon those that are reliable.

Lieberman, forget it. Lieberman should re-register as a Repug and get over it. I never understood his choice on Gore's ticket. Serious mistake from my perch. No mojo.

And, Gephardt is a good man… but please! Gore is a good man too… but we need elect-ability. Not just the votes, but we need someone who engages the electorate. One, and only one of many, of my beefs with Nader was his statement that they appealed to the disenfranchised. The Disenfranchised My @$$ !! They appealed to the college student, and the activist. But the inner city? The dock workers? The farm workers? Gore has it hands down here amongst this group, and yet he sees that it isn't enough. And I really respect Gore. But, Gephardt?

I haven't seen Kerry's speech yet – the Cal Dem site is apparently in the Manana Time Zone.

[If anyone knows who should be contacted to offer technical expertise, please share it with me. And if you have contacts with the DNC… Thanks! I'm a software engineer.]

Kerry has a long ways to go to win my love. He is The Senate. He is Senatorial. And he totally put out any burning flame of desire with his failure to vote on the late term abortion bill. Can you read, 'politics as usual?' Can you read, 'spineless?' Pathetic.

I like Edwards. Edwards is smart, articulate and gets good style points. I believe that 'tort reform' is just another phrase for 'kill jury trials.' I'm glad that Edward is in the race. As I reminded another stellar trial attorney tonight, 'Just because you're sexy doesn't mean you don't have a brain.' … :-) … But… Edwards ,,, hmmmm….

And, I look forward to catching the speech by Sharpton. I think the mainstream oldtime Dems are wrong on Sharpton. He has been speaking to many of us. And I am mainstream and oldtime. :-) He should be listened to – not dismissed, or avoided – and relished. I think that there are many out here like me that like what he's saying. We love the irreverence and the 'Reverend.' We like someone that has oratory skills. Damn, we are hungry for some mojo out here! But, we don't really think he has what we want for a President. Sharpton is important to the gestalt.

But Dean… Dean won my heart today.

I am a fickle woman. But if I start to wear his sweater, it'll be no turning back. Then it's forever, Baby.

Dean has the juice. And the line that won me was that he wants the South… that the guy in the pickup with Confederate flag also needs health insurance for his kids. His inclusion is not just your buddy and mine, but America. Whoa!

He might be the real thing.

And, Joe Trippi – you go Babe. That was right on.

-- Edwards and Dean reshown at 9:52 PST on CSPAN … Yikes… NOW!!

On Edwards: mixed feelings. He sounded a lot like Clinton and Gore during their campaigns--a long list of helpful programs, a populist "people v. the powerful" angle. Edwards' anger seems less sincere than Dean's to me but maybe that's because I'm a New Englander and I get angry at the same things Dean gets angry at.

That took some guts, to say what he did about Iraq, and I thought he handled the boos pretty well.

He went on longer than necessary about being a trial lawyer. It's an effective way to fight back, but being opposed to tort reform is not the big issue of the day.

He was damn, damn impressive on education and civil rights.

But overall, he doesn't have Dean's fire or Kerry's "presidential" air. His campaign feels like it's from the 1990s and not the grimmer, post 9/11 world we live in now. A rather distant third....maybe also behind Graham, who I don't know anything about. (Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun seem utterly un-electable to me, and Gephardt and Lieberman leave me cold though I will vote for whichever Dem wins the nomination).

Kath,

I put it at Dean - Edwards - Kerry.

It's not your New Englander attitude. I'm from the North SF Bay Area, California. Kucinich has some juice here. But I agree with the opinion that Dean's interest is not anti-war... I think it is mostly about his deportment.

Is there anyplace to watch the video of Dean's speech besides the CA Dem party website? I don't really want to give out my address and phone number just to watch one video.

AWD... if you get CSPAN, turn it on right now. Otherwise, Dean's video isn't on the Cal website yet anyway. If you don't get CSPAN, check back on their WEBSITE later... the video is usually available. http://www.cspan.org

France's push at Monday's Security Council to extend inspections will be trumped by the Bush push toward war. Blix's Monday presentation will only be a news blip.

Bush is playing on frustrations to "get this thing over with". Yet Bush has never taken diplomacy or inspections seriously. He had a pre-set agenda to start war by February or March, and that's what he's gonna do.

Inspections would bring disarmament with U.S. military support. So what if it takes three or four months? So what? Imagine how successful inspections would be with American power behind enforced inpections, not war. Saddam would have to let inspections/disarmament go forward. That's better than raining bombs on Iraq, with no new U.N. resolution.

On Monday, the Bush spin will be "support our troops, we're goin' in!". Most Americans will gladly follow since the conflict will be finally over.

Blix, France, and the non-resolution will be totally forgotten. A week from now, by March 24, no one will remember Hans Blix. A juicy war will be underway.

War is more glamorous than peace. It's more fun to talk about. Better yet, when stockpiles of hidden weapons are found, Bush will yelp " 'told ya so! Look here! I told you they had hidden stockpiles! 'Told you!".

No one, but no one, will point out that the inspectors could have identified those hidden weapons with more U.S. support for inspections.

The war will make Bush a war leader. Military honor, bravery and medals will be on display. That's more glamorous than peace, Hans Blix, or continued inspections.

And when Baghdad falls on the thirteenth gruesome day, no one will focus on the Trillion Dollar aftermath. Americans will only remember Bush's spin that he "freed Iraq". Then we'll go on to other things like tax cuts.

Howard Dean, John Kerry and the mainstream media must remind voters that Iraq could have turned out much more peacefully, if only Bush had supported those unglamorous, dull inpections.

First, I would also like to echo Kim's prayer for our young men and women over in the Middle East. May they come home safe, sound, and appreciated for all their sacrifices. I teach their sons and daughters, so I know first hand the stress this whole situation is having on their families.

Second, I would also extend my prayers to those of us who continue to oppose the current President. May we find strength in our numbers and comfort that in a couple of years, we WILL have the power to change the direction of our government.

Third, I've been watching Governor Dean for about 10 years now. I've always been impressed by his oratory. But last night, while watching him on C-SPAN I could not believe my eyes and ears. It's been a long time since I heard a political stump speech which moved me to tears. But he did last night in his closing.

The challenge for Dean supporters on the 'net is on! Governor Dean is doing his part. But he can't do it alone. He needs our help and our investment.

Howard DEAN/Wesley CLARK for America
Economic Security/Homeland Security

I feel like we're on the cusp of something, and Dean is the catalyst. As various folks on this thread have said, Dean may have a tough time if the war goes well (and to be sure, we ALL WANT OUR TROOPS HOME SAFELY AND QUICKLY). But the devil is in the aftermath; assuming the war goes well, Dean will have to turn his attention to critiquing the re-build effort (it's a fair assumption that, given all the Bush screw-ups to date, Dean will have some valid criticisms). Moreover, a quick war will allow Dean and the other candidates to bring the discussion back to where it nneeds to be -- on things like education, infrastructure spending, healthcare, the economy, etc. It's on these issues that Dean or another Dem nominee can win.

But like I said, Dean is the catalyst for a lot of folks that haven't paid too much attention -- the college students, the rurals, the dock workers. We need someone with his passion and yes, anger. Graham is a strong candidate, but he's just another centrist Senator, perhaps slightly to the left of Elmer Fudd, uh, I mean Lieberman. If Lieberman or Graham get the nomination, sure, I'll vote for them because the importance of getting Chimp and Co. out of office is paramount, but the Democratic party will have squandered every last shred of hope and optimism that is just now bubbling to the top. Any of the others -- Edwards, Kerry, even Denny the K, Reverend Al, or Braun -- I could support enthusiastically. But as I've said, LET'S GO DEAN! (And if you like him, give him some money!)

Dean would make a good VP but screaming all the time is not presidential and will turn off swing voters. Dean electorally is another Mondale or Dukakis in the making

GADem -- Absolutely. But you also need to 1)rally to grassroots, and 2) get the media to take notice. If you look at Dean's other appearnces -- Meet the Press, Face the Nation, his roundtable discussion with Iowa journalists that was also shown on C-Span last night, you'll see a more full fleshed out, reasonable, "presidential" candidate.

To comments above:

I don't think we should write off the South, but I think that any realistic look at the political calculus shows that George Bush is going to win virtually every, if not every, southern state. He really doesn't have any other population base. Idaho, Wyoming and Utah aren't much on which to base a presidential campaign. Many of the things that will create backlash for Bush in other parts of the country, including his only Southerners are real Americans undercurrent (has everyone forgotten who won the CW?), will play like gangbusters in the South.

Re Dean, and again I am not 100% on board, I think it's interesting at how his ability to create excitement and passion is viewed as a negative by so many, even on this board. Every Democratic president in the past 70 years, at least, has been able to excite the party and the country. The ability to excite is not synonymous with unelectability. In 1992, Clinton excited Democrats because of his message of hope and optimism, and his charisma. In 1976, Carter excited Democrats because he was a breath of fresh air after the degradation and filth of Nixon. In 1964, Johnson excited Democrats because he promised to carry the mantle of JFK. And so on.

Apart from the substance of Dean's speech, what affected me and other delegates was the fact that everyone around us was ecstatic and thrilled at his speech. A local labor leader, not one known for his emotion, had a tear in his eye at the end of the speech. I think that other candidates, for all their posturing about how California Democrats (which, by the way, are on the front lines of the battle against Bush and are winning in our state, thank you very much) are out of touch, had better pay heed and start trying to generate more excitement. We'll have a lot of passion to tear down Bush, but we also need a lot of passion to build up our candidate.

This post is not about Dean and the CA Dems (although Dean seems to be gathering a good head of steam!) but the thread seems to have somehow worked its way to the war on Iraq.

I wanted to know what everyone on this site thought about the possible violation of international law that would occur if the US and the UK go to war without the UN. While I think it is not feasible politically I do think it would be possible legally to charge them under the Rome Statute once war has begun (provided they bomb cities indiscriminately again) of course this would only be possible for W. if the US ratified the treaty.

There is an interesting article at The Globe and Mail.com (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030315.coibbi0315/BNStory)

Below are some excerpts:

What international law will govern the legality of the coalition's invasion of Iraq, if it comes without a second UN resolution being approved?
Could Mr. Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush be charged with war crimes?
How would they be judged?

First, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Blair can be charged with war crimes for going to war against Iraq. War crimes are, by definition, illegal acts that take place while a war is under way. The mere act of going to war is not itself a crime.

However, there is both written and unwritten (customary) law concerning the illegal use of force. The written law is embedded in the United Nations Charter. The customary law accepts that the crime of waging aggressive war, which was invented for the purposes of the Nuremberg Trials, is still in force.

However, it is not possible that either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair could ever be taken to court for improperly waging war.

First, while there might be a prima facie case that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, by invading Iraq, will have violated the Charter prohibition on the illegal use of force, only the Security Council has the legal authority to declare — or to empower a court to declare — that the Charter has been violated. Since the United States and Great Britain both hold a veto on the Security Council, the likelihood of such an outcome is, to put it charitably, remote.

As for the new International Criminal Court, its mandate is to judge allegations of genocide, mass murder, or war crimes (and maybe, one day, aggression). Checks have been put in place specifically to ensure that frivolous charges cannot be brought before it. Either the court would refuse to hear a charge brought against the U.S. President and British Prime Minister, or in agreeing to hear it, the court's credibility would be instantly rendered worthless and Great Britain would join the United States in withdrawing from its jurisdiction.

So, Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush might, theoretically, be about to violate international law by their illegal use of force. But that allegation can never be proven, because no forum exists that could conceivably judge them. Neither has to worry about sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosevic or the ghost of Rudolph Hess.

Your thoughts gentlemen (and women)?

Now you know why Bush wouldn't ratify the ICC.

Canadian for Dems and Dean--

Bush and Blair will go to war on the strength of the "serious consequences" provision of Res. 1441. But Res.1441 was passed unanimously on the belief that Bush took inspections seriously.

What happened was Bush amassed troops in the Gulf, thinking that Saddam would, of course, nix inspections. When Saddam welcomed inspectors and half-way cooperated, Bush continued to send in troops and saber-rattle. This led many of the 15 supporters of Res. 1441 to doubt Bush's commitment to Res. 1441,and many felt misled.

Saddam has violated 1441 by not totally disarming. But Bush has violated 1441 by not seriously supporting inspections, withholding information, and now calling for thier end.

Bush never had his "heart" in 1441, as he would say. The irony is that now that he can't even get Mexico, his old friend to support a new Resolution, he has to use 1441 to justify a legal war.

Bush should enforce the inspection phase of 1441, as it was originally intended. Bush and Blair should put the full force of their governments behind continued inspections. Inspections have not run their course yet. Enforced inspections will lead to disarmament. Saddam is hardly in a position to block inspectors. What will he do--gas 'em?

1441 was all about successful inspections, but Bush will use it as a legal pretext for war. Of course, war is what Bush wants. He's itchin' to be a wartime president. He'll then brag that he "freed Iraq".

On behalf of the good Democrats on this board, I want to completely repudiate this statement by NJDem:

"I hope the war goes really bad. I hope the Iraqi oil wells are torched and the price of oil hits $100 a barrel. Than the economy will be in the tank for sure when election time comes around."

You can take that comment and stick it in your ear, NJDem, it is reprehensible. If electing our candidate depends upon hoping for failure and death, you can count me out. What a horrible thing to say.

To those who were excited by Dean's speech and his rhetoric, I need only remind you that this party nominated America's greatest orator, William Jennings Bryan, four times, and he lost, four times.

(was it four? I think it was...)

On W.J. Bryan, I think he lost three times, the last time to Taft. It showed Americans weren't much interested in oratory.

It'll take more than oratory to win in '04. I'm concerned about recent commentary that the '04 Dem. field lacks a "heavyweight like Clinton".

I suppose Senator Kerry comes closest to being a "political heavyweight". Dean isn't well known enough.

Lieberman, on paper, is a "heavyweight"---15 years in the Senate and the party's V.P nominee. He has the experience of a Hubert Humphrey, or close.

But I can't think of Lieberman as a "heavyweight". When I see him on TV, I'm just waiting for someone to go up and hug and squeeze him. You can't say that about Kerry. Can you imagine someone trying to hug and squeeze John Kerry?

I wonder if CSPAN will show any of the convention this week. I missed it this weekend.

Bryan ran for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908, losing to McKinley twice and then Taft. It's very true that good oratory does not a President make, but it sure doesn't hurt. And one has to believed that a communicator like Dean would make a striking contrast to our inarticulate, childish President. Was anybody else taken aback by how cranky he was at that press conference in the Azores?

Watched a replay of Edwards and Dean speaking in California on C-spans "Road to the Whitehouse" Sunday evening. They are two fresh faces in this election. Both speeches were given at another time in Iowa that was televised. John Edwards speech hardly varied off his script. I like them both, but Dean comes off like a John McCain or Jesse Ventura. Both men are liked because of the candor. Another politician that comes to mind is Ed Koch. People appreciate sincerity and honesty.

Bush's crankiness was apparent, but it won't hurt him politically. His bad grammer and mispronunciations are still interpreted as making him "genuine" , an "average Joe" and a "regular guy".

Only a small portion of the electorate is really concerned
about Bush's personal unfitness for the job. It's unfortunate that the bar is so low. Criticizing him can make you seem pedantic, rather than genuinely concerned about the presidency.

Bush's immaturity has long been apparent from the beginning, when he snickered during the introductions of his first Cabinet appointees.

I just wonder if the American people will continue to be endeared to his mental clumsiness. If he continues to tank in the polls, what makes him an "average Joe" will suddenly be seen as stupid, and rightly so. Bush lacks the charm and grace to slither around too much mental clumsiness.

It's like when Gerald Ford would trip down the steps of Marine One, and the press would say "Oh, isn't he clumsy!" Five years later, Reagan did the exact same thing, and the story was that it just proved Reagan was a regular, normal guy.

Well, with any luck, maybe we can get the blogosphere, if not the mainstream media beyond Krugman and Alterman, to replace "Did Bush say something dumb?" as the topic of conversation with "Why did Bush say something dumb?"
The media's finally noticed (granted, in soft-spoken whispers) that Bush hasn't persuaded people (that war's necessary, that Hussein's the biggest problem right now, that we can easily democratize Iraq, etc.); maybe it can eventually get around to asking, "Did Bush even *try*, and what does the answer to *that* question mean?" (answers: 1) not really, and 2) that he didn't care whether it worked, or how it looked; in fact, Bush's diplomatic efforts have been so inept that it's like watching someone try to throw a sporting event).
Of course, we're also talking about the same clowns who haven't bothered to tell us how swimmingly the reconstruction of Afghanistan has gone, so I don't have a *lot* of hope for them...

I believe that Edwards is not in the race for the Presidential nomination. His goal is to be nominated Vice-President.

Thank you for your participation. Care to elaborate?

Why would he give up a safe seat for the VP? And make no bones about it, he's safe. He's up 20 on Burr.

Sen. Edwards is not in the race for Vice-President. He really believes he has the answers for President. I personally believe he lacks seasoning, and I am currently leaning towards Sen. Lieberman. I beieve that the garbage from the left is exactly that.

Sen. Edwards does lead Rep Burr by twenty points in the latest poll, but he has some weak spots. Rep. Burr has not only to fight a low name rec. but he will have to unite a very divided state GOP whose two factions are more interested in destroying each other, than fighting Democrats. Given this Sen Edwards will probalby win unless he has a weak campaing ala Former Sen Max Cleland of Georgia.

Edwards also had a 41% re-elect rating in that same poll. His seat is not safe at all. I would venture to say that no freshman Democrat from a southern state is ever safe.

The Moderate -- can you elaborate on what you believe Lieberman's strengths are in the primaries, where the party faithful lean left? I lean toward Dean, as do most on this blog I suspect, but I would welcome an articulate argument in support of Dean's "opposite." Thanks.

He's safe. If he decides not to run, he'll have 20 million bucks to spend. No one, not even Burr, the Pubs best candidate, by far, can beat Edwards. Forget it.

DrFrank,

I have no evidence to support my theory it is just a political hunch.

Take it or leave it.

I like Dean, but he's only going to get the nomination in some Bizarro parallel universe. Even if he does, that only guarantees four more years of The Shrub.

Leiberman? Republican lite. A guaranteed loss to Bush.

Gephardt? Doesn't matter how smart he is, he has all of the charm of a slime mold.

Kerry? Dukakis Mk. II.

Edwards is likely a lock and I like the fact that conventional wisdom says he's got no chance in hell. They said that about Clinton. I don't like him, but will probably back him if he gets the nod, since he's the only one with a serious chance of beating Bush. Otherwise, I'll be voting Green.