For the last time: Kerry DID NOT vote for war

[malatesta1137]

He voted to give the president authority AS A LAST RESORT. The measure also called for inspectors to FINISH THEIR JOB and for EXTENDED diplomacy. Bush not only lied to the American people and the UN, he also lied to Congress.

Spreading the misconception that Kerry, or Hillary, were fooled or voted for war just to benefit their political careers (as some Nader and Dean supporters on DU seem to be doing) only HELPS the Bush/Nader ticket to label Kerry as a flip-flopper. Don't fall into yet another Rove trap.

[LittleApple81]

1. I am sorry, but because the repugs control congress, dems have

been totally inefective in counteracting the repug poison in our country. In my opinion, congress (repugs forced this) relinquished their responsibility when they approved the IWR and then were railroaded by Bush... they should have said not only NO but hell NO!!!

[Tansy_Gold]

2. If boosh pushed us into war in violation of the IWR

isn't that treason? Isn't that an effective overthrow of the government?

[leesa]

3. And that was a damn foolish thing to do, wasn't it?

Kerry wants the oil wars on as much as Bush does.

[malatesta1137]

9. my grandmother used to say that

Politicians are all the same. She was sweet, but GOD was she gullible.

[porphyrian]

4. How does this not make him overdue for impeachment?

Why aren't we beating down the doors of Congress demanding his fucking head right now? Where's all the Republican outrage at all of the lies under oath that have cost thousands of innocent lives? What is it going to take before someone does something about these traitors?

[library_max]

14. You have to have a majority in the House to impeach.

You have to have two-thirds in the Senate to convict.

If the Clinton impeachment taught us nothing else, it taught us that impeachment is a purely political process. It doesn't matter whether or not the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. All that matters is whether the opposition party has the votes and is willing to use them. The Democrats don't have the votes, so pressuring them to use them isn't going to help. It's a waste of energy better spent elsewhere.

[whosinpower]

28. In that regard

It is crystal clear that the system of checks and balances is broken. Partisanship has overruled what is best for the nation.

[library_max]

43. Yeah.

We need to think long and hard about that around here. If we do manage to get the Bush gang out of the White House and at least control one house of Congress, we need to be careful not to fall into the politics of "an eye for an eye." We would do better to repudiate the corrosive partisanship that started with Gingrich and try to return to the bipartisanship that preceded him. Otherwise, it's just a big pendulum that's going to keep swinging back and forth.

[mstrsplinter326]

5. Playing devil's advocate:

Pretending Kerry didn't support the war allows the mainstream democrats (from dukakis to kerry) to get away with the same crap they've been pulling for years: takling like liberals, but acting like neo-cons in certain instances.

Nearly all of congress cheerlead as Bush ordered us into Iraq.

It's folly to believe your candidate of choice to be perfect, even if you believe in every plank of his/her platform.

(Not a dean, nader or rove supporter.)

[diamond14]

6. thanks. I've been telling DUers this since January....and there are

currently WAY too many reTHUGlicans here spreading rovian lies all over DU....

be careful...call them out when they rear their ugly heads....


just last week, Kerry volunteers were viciously attacked on this board....it's the KKKarl rove 'whispering' and 'rumor spreading' attacks, and that approach has worked to keep bush* in power and keep bush*'s numbers high....

the Kerry/Edwards campaign is under hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads, and slimy reTHUGlicans talking all over radio/TV...they have a FULL PAID COMPUTER ROOM full of internet board chatters who are spreading these LIES....

neither KERRY or EDWARDS voted for war, Kerry gave a very important speech about his vote on the Senate floor...and it was NOT a vote for war....you are absolutely correct...and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops:

Kerry voted to give the president authority AS A LAST RESORT. The measure also called for inspectors to FINISH THEIR JOB and for EXTENDED diplomacy. Bush not only lied to the American people and the UN, he also lied to Congress."


(expect LOTS of RL dittoheads to start fluttering around)...

[HootieMcBoob]

7. Your right

However, I think it was a bad decision based on the person to whom they were giving the "blank check" as Senator Byrd described it so often and so eloquently. But they made the decision to just trust the President. As Kerry said in Rolling Stone, who knew he would fuck it up so badly.

Under another president it might have been used as the thing that would allow the inspectors back in and they would have discovered that there were no WMD, that there was no army to speak of, no air force, no nuclear program, that Saddam was no immediate threat at all to this country or his neighbors.

All of us here knew exactly what Bush had in mind. They bad mouthed the inspectors constantly, went to the UN only when they absolutely had to. There was a record of the people in the highest levels of the administration's desire to invade Iraq and assume "constabulary duties".

The decision that Kerry made was understandable but I believe, given this particular President, a bad decision. I wish he would describe it that way. In retrospect, it was the wrong decision based on what we know now about the reckless manner in which this President and the people advising him run the country.

[library_max]

15. Hindsight is twenty-twenty. /nt

[LWolf]

8. lol

I've lost count of how many times I've read this "for the last time." Apparently, no one gets the final word. :-)

[MadHound]

10. Sorry, you can deny, spin or distort the truth as much as you wish

It still doesn't change the fact the Kerry, despite the will of his constituents, backed the call for war. You can go on about how the IWR was designed to build coalitions, wait for the inspectors, etc, but in the end, the IWR was exactly what it's title says it is, a WAR RESOLUTION.

Kerry not only gave his approval to this war resolution, be failed in his job by doing so. His job is to represent his constituents, yet while calls, letters, emails etc were running 280-1 against the IWR, Kerry defied the will of his constituents and voted FOR it. He didn't do his job, and thus sent us into an illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign country.

I agree with you that Kerry, et al weren't fooled into voting for the IWR, they knew exactly what the IWR was all about, just as millions of people across the country and worldwide knew. But I do think that Kerry and the others who did vote for the IWR did it out of political motivations. Upcoming elections were on their mind, and they didn't wish to appear dovish. And yet the hawkis approach they've taken has been proven to be a mistake, and as public sentiment turns against the war, an albatross around their necks.

Yet Kerry continues to push this war. If Kerry is so against the war, why is he continuing to promise that he will throw more troops into the meat grinder, that he will continue to fund this illegal and immoral occupation, and why will he not get a firm timetable for withdrawl? Until these issues are addressed by Kerry, his motivations and rational remain highly suspect. Many many of us remember LBJ and the damage he wrought in Vietnam. We don't wish to see the same happen with Kerry and Iraq.

[G_j]

12. "despite the will of his constituents"

theres the rub.. as a constituant of Edwards I can tell you he was bombarded with letters, phone calls and visits to his offices. In fact ALL of Congress was. The people were pleading on bended knee to say NO! Just ask the capitol switchboard about the number of calls they recieved. Too bad when people try to take part in democracy they are snubbed. No wonder people are so cynical about voting.

[merh]

60. And you were not the only constituent he heard from.

For everyone against the war, there was one for the war. You voice alone was not all he heard, the also was presented with false intelligence by the WH and its admin and its intelligence agencies.

False intelligence - they lied to Congress more than they lied to us because they presented them with sensitive, confidential sources that could not be made public for reasons of national security, yaaddaaa yadddaaa....

Why haven't we impeached the bastards yet - they control all 3 branches.

What to do, vote the fu**s out. Begin with Kerry and then work our way through Congress. Do not allow * to appoint any more judges.

BUT STOP BLAMING needlessly

[MadHound]

113. Exscuse me friend, but messages to all Senators and Reps

Were running 280-1 against the IWR. Public polls at the time stated that the vast majority of people wished to stay out of Iraq unless the arms inspectors found something. America didn't want to go to war, yet thanks to Bushco and the spineless slackers of the Hill, off to war we went.

And how do you know that Congress was lied to? As you state, a great many of these reports were secret. Do you have some sort of privelged access to them? Or are you just blowing smoke? Quite frankly, of those "secret reports" released, all of them fail to lie or distort at all, with none of them backing Bush's call for war. And as I've stated before, if millions of people worldwide and here at home saw through the Bush lies, why did Kerry fall for them. Is he that dumb? Or simply spineless?

And I agree with you, yes we should vote the bastards out, both Dem and 'Pub. This is the kind of mess we get into when we have a two party/same corporate master system of government. But I am not blaming needlessly. I am simply holding an elected official accountable in a country that is still supposedly democratic. What, you think I should give Kerry a pass on mass murder simply because he has a D after his name?:eyes:

[merh]

129. I hope you run for office soon, as you seem to be the

only one competent to do the job. People with your black and white view of things are as harmful to society as the fanatical repukes.

Mistakes were made, the WH lied to us and to Congress, how do you propose to deal with that? Just spew hatred and blame all?

Let me know when you run for office. I will gladly donate to your campaign.

[MadHound]

138. LOL friend, how am I as harmful as the fanatical repukes?

Because I wish to hold them accountable for the job they've done? Because I hold them accountable for their mistakes(how quaint a term that is for a deed that cost thousands of innocents their lives:eyes:)? Because I expect these people to be as smart as the people they represent, who were against the war?

Has your expectations sunk so low that you are willing to forgive something as major as an illegal, immoral war by simply dismissing it as a "mistake"? If so, then I truly do feel sorry for you. For it wasn't a mistake friend, it was genocide that killed thousands of innocents in a country that was no threat to us. If you are simply willing to win at all costs, forgive everything because it hurts "our side", then I suggest you rethink how you approach to politics. For it is that type of mindset that has helped get us into our situation we face now. If more people would hold their represenatives and other elected officials accountable, then we would have a better government today. Instead, it is people like you who have enabled murderers and thieves in their crimes, thus inflicting harm on us all. Win at all costs is never a good idea, especially in a field like politics, we're the ramifications can be deadly.

[merh]

141. No, my expectations are not so low - but I realize how

government functions and you apparently chose to disregard the obvious.

The clown-n-chief and his admin and their intelligence agencies LIED to the American people, to Congress and to the U.N.

I don't know how you could expect anyone to conceive that they would lie to the degree that they did and for you to hold Congress responsible because it believe the intelligence agencies whose job it is to give them the information, then your twisted expectation as too high and just as harmful to the rebuilding of this nation as the repukes ignorance regarding the need to rebuild.

The war was/is horrible, it was illegal and immoral -- it was weed that would be king and his corporate cronies and admin that are responsible. They lied to all and it is not unreasonable to try to understand the effect the deception had on Congress.

It is I that pities you - for your lack of understanding and your refusal to accept the obvious. I hold my representative responsible, but I also understand the nuances of government. I do not paint with the black and white brush you do - I see the shades of grays and I recognize how Congress could be duped.

[MadHound]

144. In other words, you are willing to give them a pass,

Simply because your hatred of corporate puppet Bush is stronger for your hatred of corporate puppet Kerry. You hold Bush(rightly) responsible for initiating a precipitous rush to war, but hold Kerry(and the other spineless Dems) blamesless, even though they enabled him. You hold Bush responsible for being a failure in office, yet you hold Kerry blameless for his failures in office. Face the facts friend, Kerry and the other Dems who voted for the IWR are partly to blame for what has and will happen in Iraq. You can protest that they were lied to and duped all you want, but that excuse simply doesn't cut it. Too many people, both inside and outside of government saw through the charade and said NO. You are also giving Kerry and our other represenatives who voted for the IWR a pass on not doing their jobs. If Kerry didn't listen to his constituents on an issue as vital as whether or not to go to war, what in the hell makes you think he will listen to the American people on other issues?

You say that I'm engaged in bi-polar thinking friend, but that is really quite a laugh. I'm not the one who is willing to absolve somebody of the deaths of thousands simply because they have a D behind their name. But apparently you are. Let me know how that works out in the future, because it certainly hasn't worked out in the past, and that type of bi-polar thinking is what got us into the position we are in now.

[merh]

145. The ones responsible for this are you and I and the others

who will not run for office, but will fault those who do - who cannot elect people who are free of corruption to be the majority because of our laziness or apathy. So easy to judge with you keyboard, but not to actually take action and put yourself out there.

I am voting Kerry to get Bush out.

I think there are plenty of people in Congress and the administration that share responsibility for the war crimes our nation has committed. In saying that, I also recognize that the dems powers were gravely diminished by our failures at the polls and that CONGRESS WAS LIED TO REGARDING THE INTELLIGENCE prior to the war.

Sorry that bugs. So sorry your candidate didn't win the primaries.

[MadHound]

147. Such defeatist thinking, but there is hope

You want to elect officials that aren't corrupted by corporate cash, then the solution is really quite simple; do not vote for anyone who takes corporate money for their election campaign, and work to make publicly financed campaigns a reality. That is the way to end the madness friend, and that is what I am doing to contribute to the greater good in this country. Publicly financed elections are now law in four states, and if we all worked towards that, we can take it nationwide.

Your continuing to give Kerry and others a pass because they were lied to is specious on the face of it, as I've stated before. First, there were many people who looked at all of the evidence, and decided that they were being lied to, and voted acordingly. There were also those who did their job, ie listened to, and followed the wishes of their constituents. If Kerry had done either of these basic actions, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Instead, Kerry compromised himself, and launched our country into a pre-emptive, illegal and immoral war against a people who were no threat to us.

This is what the rush to ABB brings about. A candidate who, while he is the "lesser of two evils" is responsible in part for bringing about a great loss of innocent lives. Perhaps you can live with that on your conscience, but I can't and will vote accordingly. I also am working towards getting corporate corruption out of our government. What are you doing besides playing games of moral equivalency?

[merh]

151. You haven't a clue as to what I am doing, and since you are

the morally superior one of the two of us (you are the far wiser poster and of course you can't be wrong), I do not need to explain to you what I am doing. You are not worth the effort.

THEY WERE LIED TO - facts were distorted - why is that so hard for you to comprehend and accept?

I give them a pass, just as I give you a pass for your confused ways.
Good luck in your efforts. They do sound promising.

[MadHound]

152. IE you are into giving passes to those

That don't deserve them. And just exactly how is that working out for you? That's right, we have two candidates who have stated their willingness to further prosecute this war, no matter what.

Yes, I know they were lied to, if I didn't already know by now, your repeated shouting would have alerted me to this fact. However what you continue to refuse to acknowledge is that everybody, both inside and outside the House and Senate was lied to by Bushco. Some chose to roll over for Bush(Kerry, et al), while others paid attention to ALL the information coming in, paid attention to their constituents wishes(which is, after all, their job), and came to the conclusion that Bushco was full of it.

What are you going to do, four years from now, when President Kerry is still fighting this war in Iraq. Are you still going to give him a pass, or will you finally wake up and realize that both sides in this mummers' play are feeding you a line of happy horseshit? Is that what its going to take to wake people like you up to the realization that all the two party system is is just two sides of the same coin, playing good cop, bad cop on us, while their corporate master continues to rob us blind. Or will you continue to sanction evil, but voting for the lesser of it? I guess time will tell, check back with me then, and tell me how your conscience is doing OK.

[mstrsplinter326]

156. The intelligence breakdown went like this:

The CIA filtered out the information from Iraqi informants and took much of it to be false or misguided (as it does with all of the information it received).

The Whitehouse found out the CIA had filtered a few reports about Iraq claiming multiple things about nuclear and chemical weapons out because they were deemed not to be credable.

Bush then setup the Office of Special Plans to 'review' those reports, do a few interviews, and crank out the propaganda spun from that information to send us to war.

So, in review, Congress was lied to BUT they were lied to by a suspect organization from within the Whitehouse. A proper review of the information would have uncovered that Saddam was probably not building anything more than palaces...

Lied to and did not do their job.

[merh]

13. I have some simple questions that I need you to address.

How can you expect Kerry to say that his first action when president will be to pull all troops out of Iraq?

Is it unfair to expect Kerry to make such promises when he really has a clue as to how cheney'd up things are in Iraq and he won't know until he is in office.

We destroyed a nation, do we now not have an obligation to try to rebuild it? Would that be the responsible thing to do?


That is exactly what got us hated by Osama Bin Laden. We used the people of Afghanistan to defeat the USSR and weaken the soviet powers, and when the people were successful in turning back the USSR we said, thank you very much and left them. We did not assist them with the rebuilding.

That was also a problem we faced in Kuwaitt, no rebuilding efforts after the Gulf War.

Give the man a chance to get in there and see what the f*** he can do to fix things.

FACE IT - HE WAS LIED TO JUST LIKE YOU AND ME - he is not going to trust them until he gets in there himself to see how bad things are.

Would you?

[MadHound]

22. There are some obvious answers, ones that have been given to Kerry

By members of his own party. Perhaps he should stop talking and listen.

1. "How can you expect Kerry to say that his first action when president will be to pull all troops out of Iraq?"

Because it SHOULD be his first action. It is the most prominent issue in the world today, so he should be addressing it early and often. Kerry is now making pious mouthings that the Iraq war was a mistake, that we shouldn't have gone in, etc. etc. Well then, it is time for him to put up or shut up. Kucinich had a plan for getting us out of Iraq way back in March, hell, I bet he would be overjoyed to let Kerry borrow it. Or Kerry could come up with one on his own. But instead the man is running around saying he is going to insert more troops, more money, with no definite timetable for leaving, except for the vague promise of doing it before his first term is up. Sorry friend, but when you are dealing with THE issue of the election, you HAVE to pony up a definitive plan, not just mush mouthed platitudes and vague promises, then waffling on them at every stop. And yes, Kerry knows exactly what the stituation on the ground is in Iraq. For him or the Democratic party to plead ignorance is disingenous at best, and a bald faced lie at worst. Both parties have people on the ground and in the corridors of power world wide in order to keep up with events of the day. And if you don't believe that, I've got some fine land for sale too.:eyes:

2. "We destroyed a nation, do we now not have an obligation to try to rebuild it? Would that be the responsible thing to do?"
Any effort that we put into rebuilding the government of Iraq is going to go for nought once we leave. Much like Vietnam, any government that is seen by the people of Iraq as owing anything to the US is going to be considered illegal and illegitimate, and will be torn down by the Iraqi people as soon as we are gone.

We are responsible for rebuilding Iraq, yes. But due to the detrrimental effects that the continued American presence is having on the Iraqi people, America cannot be the ones doing the rebuilding. We should pay for every single penny of the rebuilding process, but the work should be contracted out to, and done by the Iraqi people, or companies of their choosing. This ongoing feeding frenzy by American companies, Haliburton prominent among them, is another smack in the face of the Iraqi people, just in order to enrich a few already wealthy Americans. Massive numbers of people are out of work in Iraq, and are desperate for a job and money. Let them rebuild their country, instead of continuing to feed the wealthy, well connected US corporations.

And yes, Kerry was lied to, just as we all were. But millions upon millions of people saw through the lie. Yet we should give Kerry a pass? Sorry friend, that doesn't fly. If Kerry didn't see through the lie, then quite frankly the man is too dumb for the highest office in the land. If he did see through the lie, then he is either in favor of an illegal, immoral invasion, or he was cynically looking out for his own political career first, and not the wishes of his constituents, thus not fulfilling his job requirements. If that is the case, then he isn't fit for office, for he cannot even fulfill the basic requirements of his job, which is to follow the wishes of his constituents, not your own personal agenda.

[merh]

47. You know, this crap about millions saw through the lies

is old and tired. Yes, there were millions of us who saw the war for what it was - a pre-emptive strike, and invasion against a nation that did not attack us or pose us any harm.

Yet, we did not have the benefit of being presented with forged intelligence documents and/or briefigns that reflected that Iraq had WMD's and was working with Al Qaeda.

Congress was lied to more than you and I were lied to. They thought they were privy to real intelligence, intelligence that could not be made public for national security reasons.

=========

JOHN KERRY WAS AN ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST long before most of knew what a computer was. He is still an anti-war activist. He knows about wars and the harm they cause on society.

Let him be a politican and win, then worry if he doesn't do anything.


=========

As far as pulling out the troops, maybe Kerry has communicated with your favored candidate and he will put a plan in play to remove the troops as soon as possible. But to expect him to say, yeah that is what I am going to do is impossible - god knows how cheney'd up things will be by the time the weed leaves in Jan 2005.

More troops and money is vital to what is going on right now and I bet you will find that the family of the troops and the troops would appreciate knowing that they may be able to eat better and have equipment and replacements soon. Jesus, don't you see that part of the f'up of this mess is that our troops were and are stretched thin and there was/is not enough of them to help restore order (to prevent looting). They have not funded or supported the military and that is essential to properly

[CWebster]

49. These attempts at revisionist history are a disgrace

to rationalize voting for Kerry.

Vote for Kerry is you must, but don't do so at the expense of the truth. Don't compromise at least that.

[merh]

83. Your attempts to applaud your superiority mindset without

reviewing "history" from all angles is faulty. Read the f'ing resolution - it states it clear as day.

[MadHound]

105. Thank you for making my point, in a round about way

"Yes, there were millions of us who saw the war for what it was - a pre-emptive strike, and invasion against a nation that did not attack us or pose us any harm."

Since you and I both agree on this, then tell me why Kerry didn't see through the lies, didn't see "the war for what it was - a pre-emptive strike, and invasion against a nation that did not attack us or pose us any harm."? Or perhaps he did, and voted for it for his own political motivations.

And no, we didn't have the information that Kerry was presented with, we were simply allowed to view what was released to the public, like the IAEA reports stating there were no nukes, or the arms inspectors' reports stating the distinct LACK of WMD, and the '98 CIA report stating that Iraq had no WMD, and was no threat to us, and little threat to his neighbors. Real time information that came to the distinct conclusion that Iraq was NO threat. In addition, he did have access to reports that you and I didn't(and still don't) have access to. Some of it, like Clarkes accessment that Iraq was no threat, or Wilson's contention that Niger uranium was a lie, were later released to the public. These point out the fallacies of the Bush arguement. In fact the only information backing Bush up was information provided by Bush's own cadry of "intelligence specialists", and any decent lawyer, much less a Senator, knows or should know better than to take such biased information at face value, for more times than not, such information is unreliabe at best, and a lie at worst. Yet now you are saying that we shouldn't blame Kerry for apparently being dumber than a sack of Bushs? If that is the case, then apparently he isn't fit for office now, is he?

And what about the simple, clear cut matter of DOING HIS JOB? He is supposed to represent the views of his constituents, and those views were made crystal clear that they were against the IWR. Why didn't Kerry do his job? Why did he not represent the wishes of his constituency instead of playing politics with war when he had his eyes already on the presidency? If the man fails in doing even the most basic of his job requirements, is he truly fit to entrust with the highest office in the land?

And yes, Kerry WAS an anti-war activist. But it is amazing how much being in politics changes you. I wish that we would see more of the old anti-war Kerry, instead of Kerry, the political animal. Perhaps he would have the spine to stand up to Bushco and the corporate puppetmasters currently pulling his strings. "Let him be a politican and win," that is more than half the problem friend, Kerry is being a politician, instead of doing his job and representing the views of his constituency. If Kerry, and the other politicians in Washington, had done their job, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Instead, with their eye on the elections, these politicians failed in their duty to their constituents and their country. They were spineless politicians, and now we are all paying the price.

And quite frankly friend, with public sentiment turning against the war, now would be the time to stop with the saber rattling. Instead, Kerry is going full bore ahead, promising more troops, more money, more death and destruction in a pointless war that we have no hope of "winning". To do as you, and apparently Kerry, wish, throw more, more, more, into the fray is ridiculous on the face of it. If Kerry was bright enough to realize that the Vietnam war was a pointless quagmire thirty years ago, then he is smart enough to realize that Iraq is the same today. Trouble is, he is a politcal animal now, and makes political decisions, thus shortchanging us and the world.

And quite frankly, I think what the troops and their families wish more than anything is to come home ASAP. Instead, Kerry is promising to "stay the course". What a sad waste for all of us.

[malatesta1137]

16. you seem to be doing the spinning

and the distortion. Kerry voted for authority as LAST RESORT, Bush used it as first. If you can't see the difference there, I just hope there aren't too many of you out there.

[MadHound]

25. And millions upon millions of people both in the US and worldwide

Saw through that sham, and knew exactly what Bush would do once he got the IWR through, go to war no matter what. Millions called upon their Congressmen and Senators, begging them not to vote for the IWR, for they knew what a sham it was. In fact messeges to the various Congressional members was running 280-1 against the IWR. Is it too much to ask of a Senator to due his A number 1 job and represent his constituents?

Sorry friend, that arguement just doesn't fly. If Kerry is that dumb to be taken in by Bush, when millions of ordinary Americans, who don't have the kind of access Kerry does, knew that the IWR was a sham, then quite frankly, the man is too dumb for the highest office in the land.

If Kerry cannot fulfill the primary requirement for his job, representing the will of his constituents, then he is not fit to be promoted.

Spin, distortion, and after the fact explanations cannot undo the reality of what Kerry did, which was authorize an illegal, immoral war. The best Kerry can do is to make amends for his mistake, yet he isn't even doing that. Instead, he calling for more money and more troops to be thrown into the fray, with only a vague promise of getting the troops home before the end of his first term. Sorry, but it seems to me that Kerry is still for this war.

[HFishbine]

50. Right

So at the very least, Kerry used poor judgement in thinking that Bush would go to war as a last resort.

[F.Gordon]

75. Did they?

when millions of ordinary Americans, who don't have the kind of access Kerry does, knew that the IWR was a sham

Or was it simply a matter of people just being against "war"? Did millions of ordinary Americans take the time to review the public CIA report? I don't recall any "anti-war" protest signs that said...."The CIA report is a sham!!".....or..."Iraq has NO WMD's!!" .. or ..."Saddam DID NOT gass his own people!!" ... or .. " section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 will not be honored by BUSH!!" The anti-war protest was just that....a protest against "war".

How many of these millions of ordinary Americans actually read the IWR and all the prior referenced UN and Congressional Resolutions?

And where were all these millions of ordinary Americans before we went into Afghanistan? It was just as much as a "sham", perhaps even more so.

BTW.. the official title of the IWR was: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. It was necessary to get the word "war" in there..... since we were having this woor on tar at the time. Kinda' like....The Patriot Act....Partial Birth Abortion....and tax cuts being called a Jobs Creation package. But, I'm sure you already knew all this....you being so much smarter than Kerry and all...

[MadHound]

122. No, I'd say it was millions of ordinary Americans knew the IWR was a sham

After all, they were watching the IAEA come up empty handed, the arms inspectors come up empty handed, the CIA saying that Iraq was no threat, etc, etc. Most people are not the knee jerk kind, they actually take time to go do research of some sort.

And you already know the answer to your question about signs friend, which is that such slogans are too short and not catchy enough to be effective at a rally.

And actually, these millions of Americans were behind the Afghan war, because it was demonstrably provable that this is where Al Qaeda bases were, that war in Afghanistan was a just operation. Iraq had no link to terrorism, and people saw through the smokescreen on that, hence their opposition to going into Iraq.

[F.Gordon]

131. Thanks for clearing that up

And actually, these millions of Americans were behind the Afghan war, because it was demonstrably provable that this is where Al Qaeda bases were, that war in Afghanistan was a just operation.

We went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power. Where are the terrorists now? Still in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Sudan and .......

You didn't see this? I did. When bush* removed economic sanctions on Pakistan, sent Rumsfeld into Pakistan and India to "trade" some military equipment, paid Pakistan a few bucks to let us blow the shit out of their "friends"...the Taliban....sneaked in a little 35 billion dollar contract for the JSF....you didn't see this as a sham?

ALL "war" is bad. But even you have found a way to qualify one but not another. After 9/11 the blood-lust that existed in this country would have allowed bush* to nuke California. If bush* had gotten his way, we would have gone into Iraq right after 9/11....then I suppose you'd be here justifying his actions.

[MadHound]

139. You suppose a lot friend, yet have nothing but bluster to back it up

Quite frankly, if we had truly stuck with the war in Afghanistan, the "War on Terror" would be over with by now. Instead Kerry and his merry band of mindless Dem drones peed all over themselves in their haste to slakes Bushes bloodlust. Thus, we took a country that had demonstably no ties to terrorism, and made it terror central. The US became the largest recruiting tool for Al Qaeda by our involvement in Iraq. Afghanistan was considered a just war, not just by the US citizens, but by Muslims worldwide. Yes, bin Laden was a blowback mess that we were responsible for, but a least we were willing to clean it up.

Sorry friend, but your moral equivalency arguement doesn't stand up under the light of facts. Thank you for playing, try again.

[F.Gordon]

142. "bluster" is my middle name

Quite frankly, if we had truly stuck with the war in Afghanistan, the "War on Terror" would be over with by now

:sigh:

I'll let your statement be our close to this "game".

[Freya]

36. Hmmm...

Who would have thought the guy who had lied a million times before hand would lie about war as a last resort?

[sangh0]

160. Who would have thought that hundreds of CIA analysts would lie also?

It wasn't just Bush* saying that Saddam had WMD's. The entire US intelligence community thought so, as did the intelligence agencies from all over the world.

[TeacherCreature]

48. can you show me where in the resolution it says the President

must follow a specific set of steps before going to war?

[F.Gordon]

79. Seems pretty clear to me......

:shrug:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[TeacherCreature]

135. there is nothing there that forces the president to prove his case for war

nothing at all.

[GreenArrow]

20. I'd go further

It's not simply enough to say that Kerry (or Edwards or Hilary, for that matter) voted for IWR for political reasons; they did it because taking control of that region of the world, removing Sadaam, etc. is long standing US policy. If they did not approve of the approach, they approved of the goals. Kerry knew, as did Edwards, that the war was bogus in every regard, and voted for it anyway, in spite of the wishes of their constituents. They were in no way, shape or form lied to, fooled, or misled.

[merh]

11. Thank god, there are others that understand this ...

I posted this yesterday and was only attacked for it. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Kerry and Edwards did not authorize the war and their response to the question about the war was legitimate. If I knew then, what I know now, I would not have voted for the war.

The legislation that was voted on in October 2002 was based on the lies of the WH and its intelligence sources, the same lies that have been telling us for years (Iraq had WMD's, SH was linked to 9/11 terrorists, chemical biological weapons, etc) The resolution lists these lies as reasons for the use of force (no war was ever declared) BUT it specifically provides action was not to be taken unless all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted.



==============
HJ Res 114

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(snip)

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection(a)to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A)will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/H.J.Res.114_RDS.pdf

===========================
my previous post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1972992

[malatesta1137]

17. thank you!

for posting the resolution terms. But it won't matter to the Bush/Nader supporters.

[merh]

32. I have also been reading the intelligence report

It is lengthy, but it really doesn't say much of anything. It basically is a history of intelligence efforts over the last 30 years.

This does not support the claims made that Congress knew of the lies in October 2002 when they passed HJR 114 - it is too bland and does not cover that issue (that I can find).

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malatesta1137]

23. your radical thinking is the reason

Kucinich or Nader or Dean can't get elected to anything.

Go read the resolution above.

Do you think you can achieve change by being an extremist? Kerry knows, unfortunately, that at least 50% of Americans are brainwashed and see war as just another sports. He knows those people won't be brought to enlightenment overnight, as Nader, Kucinich and Dean ignorantly do.

[G_j]

27. IMO it was the resolution itself

which was extremist as it gave unwarranted power to extremists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The majority of the people now think the war was a mistake.

Kerry, Edwards, Bush, Cheney, are now in the minority.

[TeacherCreature]

58. Yup Dean was right all along

But he can't be elected? Well then I see no reason to continue voting. If Kerry and Edwards are too scared to admit they were WRONG and if their supporters are too scared to stand up to their lies, then I don't have any trust that they won't govern exactly like bush. Getting less radical judges is not my idea of change.

[TeacherCreature]

55. you fool

Dean isn't even a liberal. Some things are just wrong and even centrist and conservatives can recognize when that is the case.

[G_j]

19. let me just say

there are some extremely astute people here at DU and elsewhere.
As the vote approached we were very aware of the wording and we knew that it was extremely dangerous to give this much power to Bush (& Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfkowitz, Rice, Perle etc..)
It was a very foolish move and the consequences of it are now there for all to see.

[merh]

53. Let me just say that the astute people at DU were not

presented with false intelligence documents and reports that "proved" Iraq has WMD's, chemical/biological weapons and was tied to AQ and the 9/11 attacks.

[TeacherCreature]

62. let me just say that there were some very astute people in congress

that saw through the bush lies. None of them were running for office at the time.

[merh]

95. I am so glad you can say that and be so certain.

It must be nice to be so certain.

Congress was lied to as was the American people. Why is that so hard to believe.

If they were running for office, that would be justification to find them at fault for the approval vote, because at that time the loudest voices heard were from the pro-war - revenge for 9/11 crowds and voters.

[TeacherCreature]

136. take it up with Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd Tom Harkin

Barbara Boxer and many many members of congress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. "Astute" leaders in France & Germany and our congress..

did see those false documents, and saw them for what they were, and refused to buy into them.

Seems like Kerry and Edwards are less "astute" or the whole structure of "Duh, I wuz fooled" defense is pretty thin.

[merh]

85. Astute leaders in Germany and France were relying on their

intelligence agencies - where our Congress was relying on our intelligence agencies - geezzeee is that so hard to comprehend?

[G_j]

74. as has been pointed out, Byrd and many others

didn't buy it.

This might shed a little light on why.

a quote from Karen Kwiatkowski:
(Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists.)

from the article "Bagged and Tagged"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski82.html


"Normal people (this apparently excludes most members of Congress) would wonder why you would believe anything from the CIA or DIA on Iraq anyway, given we had had no real in-country assets or visibility for years. Not even a military attaché, or a tiny hovel of a CIA station in Baghdad or Basra. Last CIA agent we had in Ba-ath country was an illegal member of the Hans Blix team. "

[merh]

80. Hindsight is 20/20

Since your link doesn't work, I cannot tell the date of the article. In Oct of 2002, most everyone was convinced (thanks to the lies of the WH) that Iraq had WMD's.

Byrd was not persuaded, so we are blessed that he is in Congress. So what does that prove? Just as you may be more intelligent than I am that does not mean you are always wrong!

[G_j]

84. sorry, here is the link

and I fixed it in the original
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski82.html

[merh]

93. I thought this was the same agent/officer that I had

read before - she is not contradicting what I have said.

The real intelligence was not allowed to be given to those that needed it. Those that had it just perpetuated the lies. Karen Kwiatkowski left the service and the pentagon because of her frustration with the WH and its admin. They were intent on the war in Iraq and wanted the intel agencies to focus on nothing else but that.

[G_j]

96. would it be too outrageous

to think that given the magnitude and consequences of the vote that our elected leaders really buckle down and do their homework.
I don't think it was a secret that Bush was hell bent on the war.
Look at how many lives have been lost since that 'fateful' vote.

[merh]

101. You were not there -- how can you be so sure?

You have no idea what lies were fed to Congress, but it would not be unreasonable to assume that the USofA intelligence agencies were being honest with Congress.

That is doing there job, listening to USofA intelligence agencies. Who would have thought they would lie to congress?

[G_j]

108. If I remember correctly, at that time there were already CIA

employees saying that they were being pressured to cook the books on Iraq. There was a major article about it in the Philadelphia Enquirer, also an interview with the article's author on NPR's Fresh Air.

[merh]

116. Okay, fine, disgruntled employees - newspaper article

the WH and WH intelligence agencies - hum, weigh the difference on the credibility of the sources AT THAT TIME!

[G_j]

121. big bloody red flags n/t

[merh]

128. Yes, if I had been there, it would have been that way for me,

but - that is with the knowledge that the WH lies. In Oct 2002, suspicions may have been had relative to lies, but prove was not forthcoming.

[CWebster]

21. "AS A LAST RESORT"

Almost the entire world wasn't buying it--including courageous members of congress who bore abuse for protesting it and now you want to give Kerry a pass for either cowardice or poor political calculation.

[malatesta1137]

24. Vote for Nader then

will he be on your state ballot? if not, just vote Bush.

[G_j]

30. well that sure is ridiculous

a cheap shot, and I suspect you know that.

[CWebster]

33. Its all they got

when confronted with the truth.

How tragic is that? And now Kerry wants the fact that the Invasion was a mistake out of the Democratic plank? I never liked the creep and I dislike him even less with each passing day. But why vote for Nader and give y'all the pleasure of blaming Nader for Kerry and the DLC failings? It never seems to occur to the New Democratic gestapo demanding "unity" force that there is still an option for those who they think have no choice: Not to vote. They shouldn't assume all votes would automatically go for Kerry if there was no other alternatives.

[G_j]

51. although I plan to vote for Kerry......

The people in my immediate community are committed 'on the ground' peace activists. It gives me a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach to witness how little enthusiasm there is amongst some people. I do agree with those who say that Bush must be dumped, but damn I wish the activist community I am a part of was not so discouraged. These are the type of committed people that are such an asset in a campaign. Most will just be dragging themselves to the voting booth and not much more. And no Nader isn't generating much interest either, so I imagine most of us will be voting for Kerry.

[CWebster]

56. Know what you mean

Almost as if those demanding enthusiastic allegiance have to resort to threats and strong-arm tactics. They aught not press it.

[malatesta1137]

57. the truth is that Kerry

voted for was AS LAST RESORT, people who can't see that deserve Bush as president.

[TeacherCreature]

67. not true

nowhere in the bill does it demand that war be a last resort.

[malatesta1137]

61. not cheap shot, it's called REALITY

if you're not for Kerry, if you vote for Nader or if you stay home, you are giving Bush more authority for war than Kerry ever dreamed of.

[CWebster]

63. The Kerry should offer an alternative

and acknowledge that reality.

[TeacherCreature]

68. has Kerry said he will give us less war?

Stop with the bully tactics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. No. Kerry's "plan" calls for more troops.

He is still supporting Boobya and the occupation.

[mstrsplinter326]

159. Que the Imperial March music!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, tonight's feature presentation: 1984.

...
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
You're either with us or against us.
...

Reality Check:

The CIA filtered out the information from Iraqi informants and took much of it to be false or misguided (as it does with all of the information it received).

The Whitehouse found out the CIA had filtered a few reports about Iraq claiming multiple things about nuclear and chemical weapons out because they were deemed not to be credable.

Bush then setup the Office of Special Plans to 'review' those reports, do a few interviews, and crank out the propaganda spun from that information to send us to war.

So, in review, Congress was lied to BUT they were lied to by a suspect organization from within the Whitehouse. A proper review of the information would have uncovered that Saddam was probably not building anything more than palaces...

Kerry, Congress: Lied to and did not do their job.

[TeacherCreature]

64. those are the only two choices in your opinion?

Why not continue to insist the Kerry is full of shit and expect him to finally make sense of it? Or how about continue to call it like it is HE VOTED FOR WAR SO HE COULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT, and vote for him anyway because he is not bush?

[CWebster]

65. Lol

hmmmm

[emulatorloo]

26. Sorry, it is more fun to bash Dems who were lied to than to Bash Bush

It is more fun to paint IWR with a broad brush than to read what it said.

It is more fun to dismiss Kerry's speeches at the time about UN, Inspectors, War as a last resort, etc and say (with no evidence) that he wanted the Iraq invasion

It is more fun to blame Dems than to hold Bush accountable for violating his oath of office.

It is more fun to divide and conquer than to get Bush out.

[G_j]

31. sorry

I don't think it is F#$%@*^g fun at all!
And if you don't think people concerned about this don't go after and expose Bush with a relentless passion then you aren't paying attention.

[emulatorloo]

41. Oh I am paying attention

And I see the same posters (not you, I don't think I've seen yr posts) nit pick a Kerry quote, have some kind of big dramatic reaction, and start a thread about how despicable Kerry is.

And how the poster will be forced to vote third party.

Et Cetera, Et Cetera.

Somehow Bush is blameless and Dems are all to blame, and the real consequences of a third party vote are willfully ignored.

[CWebster]

52. Third party is threat

is filling an obvious vacuum.

Amazing how the Democrats would risk losing rather than lose.

[emulatorloo]

66. I'd rather Kerry win than Bush

EOM

[CWebster]

70. Fine

but more than that-it is nothing to cheer about.

[G_j]

59. well I spend the majority of my time

here going after the Bush criminal enterprise. Still I have been a peace activist since Vietnam and Kerry gets me a bit upset. You can't underestimate how seriously some people take their "peace". :-)

[CWebster]

38. Really?

I thought it was more fun to bash Nader for telling it like it is.

He said the troops have died for nothing. And they have. He was right.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. You can keep on believing that if you want to...

but there are too many in the House and Senate who voted against it because they knew exactly what the real intent of that resolution was and where it was going to lead us, regardless of the pretty wording used in it. Robert Byrd said it best when he begged them not to give Bush what amounted to a blank check to wage war in Iraq.

When I watched the vote in the Senate, I watched John Kerry cast a purely political vote designed to cover his ass when he ran for president. He did not want to be labeled by the GOP as the man who voted against the war, and it showed.

I will still be voting for Kerry even though I despise his spinelessness on the IWR.

[Freya]

34. As a person

who has heard what this resolution meant straight from a law professor - you are GREATLY mischaracterizing what this resolutions intention was. If that's not good enough for you - read what kerry and others said in the congressional record.

I think kerry should say he made the wrong vote. This will come out in sharp contrast to bush who is unable to admit when he screwed up. This is one of those things you can't deny the effect of. It would be like saying you didn't rob that bank when there is crystal clear digital video of you doing it.

It doesn't matter when compared to bush that kerry voted for it. What's bush going to do? Complain about going to war in iraq?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Of course they voted for the war.

Anybody who was paying the slightest bit of attention at the time, knew that Bush fully intended to invade Iraq. In effect, the IWR vote gave him the cover he wanted so that he could point at collaborators like Kerry and Edwards and say, as he and Rove are saying, "They voted for it".

Not only that, they still support it.

[RetroLounge]

37. I was a Dean Supporter, and I did not like Kerry's Vote

But after actually reading what he voted for, and remembering the state of the country at that time, I can forgive him and Edwards their vote. The boosh implementation is the problem here, in the here and now.

of course, the purists and naderites and boosh-trolls here on DU will tell you otherwise, and never forgive, and prefer to be "right" and will enjoy 4 more years of boosh-hell.

Sheesh, we have a great ticket here, that will whoop the boosh-ass, and people still wanna bitch and moan about IWR.

Well, they can Cheney themselves, AFAIAC...

RL

[CWebster]

46. If the ticket was that great

They would be polling in the 60's- at least, instead of a dead heat compared to this utter Bush disaster on every level. Trouble is, these political cowards are incapable of forging ahead with their own strong differentiated vision--they are incapable of even demanding accountability due to their own complicity. Not only a dark moment in US history, but a dismal period in party character and strength. If that isn't corrected a Kerry win will simply slow the process, not reverse it.

[G_j]

94. I can't speak for anyone else

but I'm more than willing to forgive, its not acknowleging that it was a mistake that makes me nervous.

[Tina H]

149. Agree

I tried to make this point on another thread, but not so concisely as you have done.

In fact, I am not even against Kerry continuing the war if a bloody civil war is the likely outcome of a Jan 2005 pull-out.

Still, acknowledging the initial mistake seems like an important character and competence thing. It might also be nice to hear Kerry say that he will agree, by treaty, to remove all U.S. military bases by 2008.

[lojasmo]

40. They were duped, plain and simple.

To say they weren't fooled into voting for the war is disingenious. I KNEW the administration was going to war, why didn't they?

[BeFree]

77. Ask yourself..

If you were a US Senator and the president told you face to face that he would involve the UN and allow the UN to inspect for weapons and then rely on that UN report as the basis for action, and then he told you that his invasion would be the last resort, what would you say?

What would you do if you also knew that you would soon be running for the president of the US, knowing that 80% of the American people thought the country in question was responsible for 9/11, and if you didn't support the president that 80% would be told that you support the terrorists?

Ask yourself how, if you wanted to be president, how would it look if you yourself didn't support the current president against the majority's perceived terrorist threat, how would it look once you were the president?

That's the reality of the situation. Political reality, and we are dealing in political realities, not utopia- where the truth is all.

Voting for IWR was a utopian mistake but it was a smart political move.

Thanks and have a nice day....

[CWebster]

87. You forgot to mention that the pResident was Bush

and that by standing up for the truth was the strong, courageous and moral thing to do--presidential material - that doesn't send our trusting young into harm's way without a purpose.

Of course, speaking out at the risk of being momentarily unpopular in a country subjected to the drumbeat of war and blinded by nationalism, lies and bloodlust and saving thousands of lives and unnecessary suffering--that might be demanding too much "purity".

[BeFree]

97. Can you handle the truth?

Because the truth is that political reality dictated that 80% of the American public wanted something to be done. Kerry agreed something had to be done. It took great wisdom and courage to vote the way he did. I didn't like it, I still don't, but I respect why he voted the way he did.

Ya know, as a former utopian, I repect your opinion. But the political reality is that you are incorrect in the way you are attempting to speak about it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. "Political Reality"?

Well, at least you're honest about Kerry's motives being dishonest.

As for "political reality". Now that the report has come out, and the majority of the American people think that the invasion was a "mistake", wouldn't be "politically realistic" for Kerry and Edwards to admit their "mistake" and attack the war?

[BeFree]

99. Politics and honesty have no relationship

That is political reality.

I will wait for Kerry to be inaugurated before I begin to bash him about Iraq. I really, really want him to be the next president and will do what I can to make that happen. Come Jan. 20, 2005, it's a whole new ballgame.

See you then, eh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Political reality. 20,000 dead.

All for the sake of political expediency and realpolitik. I'm sure that it's a comfort to the "collaterally damaged".

OK. I would prefer that Kerry be elected. He'll have to do it without my vote, however. His recent statements calling for more troops and his support of apartheid in Israel have exceeded my nose holding capabiilities.

But, why wait to call him and Edwards on their cowardice and, if you like, their lack of political reality. The one issue that can bring the fratboy boob down is Iraq. To give it to him by default is hardly politically realistic.

They can even cover their own sorry asses by claiming to have been "misled" and by now saying that the war was a "mistake".

[BeFree]

118. "The one issue"

The one issue that can bring the fratboy boob down is Iraq

So why use the same issue against Kerry as you suggest be used on boosh? WHY? Fine, you'll sit this one out. But why bash Kerry? In my book bashing Kerry is neither courageous or wise.

[lojasmo]

100. others didn't make that "mistake"

They did the right thing instead.

I think "political" decisions are utter bullshit.

Of course the fact that I'm a conscientious objector to war makes my viewpoint somewhat skewed.

Also, I could never BE president because of that.

Giving Bush free reign to go to war was utter crap, though.

[BeFree]

111. Yes, some did the right thing

But, IIRC, none were up for re-election, or running for president.

As I've stated, the political reality demanded that at least tacit support for boosh against the terrorists be given the president. As distasteful as his vote was to me personally, I understand why he voted as he did.

Dean: correct... but gone
Kucinich: correct... but gone


I dislike 'Political Reality' as much as anyone. But it's the only game in town. I either play or I sheeple it out. I'll play, because the big picture is that we must change things.

Change, when it occurs, is either catastrophic, or it evolves a little bit at a time. How do you like your change?

[lojasmo]

140. catastrophic might be preferable.

Little by little leaves too much room for backward "progress"

How many "good choices" do we allow before we end up with Zell Miller as our candidate?

Not that I'm saying JK/JE are zell, but....being tolerant of too many "good polital choices" can lead us down that path.

I know we're on the same side. thanks for the thoughtful debate.

[latebloomer]

42. "As a last resort"

is bullcrap as well. There was no need to go after Iraq at ALL, except to bolster our hegemony in the Middle East. Kerry is in favor of this. His political career would not go as far as it has gone were he not willing to serve the money interests that need us to dominate the globe.

Despite all this, I will be voting for him, because I fear and despise Bush.

[treepig]

come on, he voted for the IRW

think he even read it?

i suspect he at least read the title "IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION" and signed on board pronto, similar to his response to the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act - nice acronym there, too.

[BeFree]

86. Of course he read the IWR...sheesh

If you remember, he was promised by boosh certain things that booosh lied about. Now he can bend booosh over the barrel and give him a good thrashing. He also has taken away one of the most damaging accusations that booosh could have used against Kerry: "Kerry supports the terrorists". booosh can't use it, can he?

Same goes for the anti-pat act.

While some here are in a utopian-la-la land, thank gawd we have in Kerry a candidate who knows how to play politics, because politics is what being the POTUS is all about.

You head-in-the-cloud utopians continue on, please, we may need you one day.

[TeacherCreature]

44. He says he voted for a bill that never existed

the bill Kerry would like us to believe he voted for was never written. He voted to give bush the authority to do whatever he felt like doing.

[Solly Mack]

45. George Bush is a liar, true

but then he always has been. He didn't bring back the Iran-Contra crew to play parlor games.

[WI_DEM]

54. I understand that, but

somehow knowledgable people like Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Bob Graham,Robert Byrd and more than 30 others in the senate and even more in the house saw thru Bush's lies and voted against the RESOLUTION. Bush had hardly made a credible case and frankly, those who voted for it were dupes.

[Kitka]

69. Sorry, but if little ole me…

could see what Bush & Co. were doing Kerry et al. should have as well. You don’t vote to authorize even a *possible* use of force when those asking for that authorization are putting out “intelligence” to support their argument that is verifiable manufactured. If I could verify that some of their claims were false, then my leaders in Congress should have been able to as well, and vote “No” at that point in time.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

72. Has anyone informed Kerry of this?

He said he voted for the resolution authorizing war in Iraq. Are you saying he is wrong? This is very confusing.

[Chicken George]

143. Congratulations Mav...

...39 posts and you're still here....must not be raising too much radright wingnut hell...

[molly]

73. You will never convince the anti-Kerry/Edwards

people here. We've been over this and over this at least a thousand times. Let them have their own little immature-stupid rants in private. Me - I want to FREE this country!!!!

[G_j]

78. I'm not anti-Kerry/Edwards

I'm anti-war and I have devoted most of my life to working for peace. thank you

[molly]

That is a very idealistic outlook and I salute you

for it. However, it is not always practical. How would you have handled Pearl Harbor or the Civil War. I am definitely not PRO-war.

[G_j]

102. in the spirit of getting rid of *

I'll add that I speak to my fellow "peaceniks" often, and I tell them I will vote for Kerry because his environmental record is light years better than Bushes. That alone is more than enough reason to get out and vote for Kerry. I find that most people agree with me on that.

This war issue is especially up for me now because of the Democratic platform and we are bogged down in a complete nightmare. It is important to me that the criminality of the war be addressed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Wrong. You will never convince the Anti-war people here.

You won't be able to convince us that voting for the invasion of Iraq was anything but an act of cowardice and political expediency.

[BeFree]

90. Wrong

I am as anti-war as anyone here, and I am convinced that it took political wisdom and courage to vote the way Kerry did. Thank gawd we have a candidate with such courage and wisdom!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Your definition of courage is at variance with reality.

23 senators voted against the popular mood of revenge and fear. That was courage. Kerry and Edwards caved into the polls.

Kerry's alleged "wisdom" of voting for it has effectively removed the most telling issue against Bush.

[BeFree]

104. Telling for you, maybe

For single issue practioners, the IWR is pretty good, eh?

The reality is that there are many issues which beg our attention and behoove us to not get sidetrcked on one item or vote. We must take the big-picture view and put aside some heartburn causes in order to heal the whole body.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. Single issue.

Well, when I voted in my first presidential election, it was 1968 and my single issue then was Vietnam. I was a registered Democrat but voted Peace and Freedom. Since then I have voted Democrat every time. This will be the second time that the Democrats have abandoned their principles enough for me to vote third party - Green.

Voting to have people killed in the name of "political reality" is just a bit too much for me to overlook.

[BeFree]

127. In 1968 Nixon was installed, and

Again in 72, thanks to single issue democrats deserting the big picture. Reagan was installed the same way.

I have lost all sympathy for those deserters, even though I consider most of them friends, but no longer allies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

133. Thank you for admitting that you are not going to be swayed by the facts.

It's about time.

[jobycom]

82. You're right. No one here will listen, though

The IWR was a clever move by the Democrats to put restrictions on a president who was claiming he could invade without congressional or UN approval. Ultimately, Bush invaded anyway, and for the record, I was against the IWR. But it was not a vote for war, and the so-called liberals who are pimping that idea are being misled. Not to mention used, since it goes along with Bush's "flip-flop" accusations.

[Freya]

117. Bull sh*t

That's what the war powers act is for. The war powers act would have reined bush in.

This act NULLIFIED the war powers act. THAT is why bush wanted it, and THAT is why the repubs in congress (and defecting dems) gave it to him.

[jobycom]

123. Right back at ya

Bush claimed he had the power to invade without congressional approval because of the existing treaty with Iraq, which Congress had ratified. It claimed that the US could use force to make Hussein comply. Given that SCOTUS had already proven it would break the law for Bush, there was no one stopping him.

[Eloriel]

88. You know, I find this just offensive

It's fine if you want to parse words, do mental contortions and Olympic-quality logistical gymnastics to let Kerry off the hook in your mind -- don't expect others to buy it. It's called intellectual dishonesty. We see far too much of it on the right, I really, REALLY hate seeing it on the Left.

Kerry and all the other Dems voted for that resolution for one overriding reason: the upcoming election. Polls at the time showed support (the that support was a mile wide and an inch deep) for the war, and they just couldn't bring themselves to do what they perceived at the time to be politically risky.

Aw, jeez. Now you've gone and reminded me what a sorry, wimp-ass, self-serving, NON-statesmanlike candidate we've got. God, how I loathe him.

[BeFree]

92. Loathe?

Kerry is the only chance we have, and you loathe him? And some wonder why the pukes control all three branches of the government. Poliitcal reality is lost to some, eh? Oh well, we shall Kerry on without ya'll.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. You find the truth offensive?

:wtf:

MATTHEWS: My second question concerns Howard Dean. Let's to go my first question. It is so abrupt. Were we right to go to Iraq?
KERRY: Not the way the president did it. Clearly, no, because he didn't plan for how to win the peace. He didn't build the kind of coalition he said he would. He didn't keep his promises to the American people. He promised he would respect the U.N. He promised he would, in fact, build an international coalition and he promised he would go to war as a last resort. And, Chris, one of the great lessons I learned in Vietnam is the meaning of the words last resort. I think the test for a president as to whether or not you send young men or women anywhere to fight is whether you can look in the eyes of parents if you lose one of them and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to avoid this happening to your child. But we had no choice for the security of our country. I believe the president of the United States fails that test in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war with Iraq if the U.N. had supported it?
KERRY: Well, we...
MATTHEWS: Well?
KERRY: The answer the answer is very simply yes. If the U.N. had supported it, there was a very...
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war if the U.N. had not supported it?
KERRY: If I were president at the time?
MATTHEWS: Right. Right.
KERRY: I would have made the judgment of whether or not to go to war, which is what a president is supposed to do. The United States of America should never be perceived as or never should go to war because we want to. We should go to war because we have to.
MATTHEWS: Did we have to go to Iraq?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Did we have to go?
KERRY: ....until you've exhausted the remedies of....
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you. Howard Dean is opposed to going to Iraq. He's simple. Absolutely, bottom line, against the war.
KERRY: Well, he's not, actually....
MATTHEWS: Joe Lieberman is for the war. Dick Gephardt is for the war, John Edwards sat right there last week and he is still for the war despite the bad intelligence he got. He says, I'm still for the war. How are you different than Dean on this issue?
KERRY: Let me correct you. Howard Dean is not clear and he is not simple. He has, in fact, embraced several positions. One of which is the Biden-Lugar amendment which, in fact, gave authorization to the president but under a slightly different wrinkle than the one we passed. Howard Dean also said he believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He believed that Colin Powell was correct. Now the question that has to be asked is, once you've come to that conclusion, what are you going to do about it? What you should do about it is precisely what I and Tom Harkin and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and a whole bunch of us thought we should do. Which is, go to the United Nations. Properly go through the inspection process. Build a legitimate international coalition and, in fact, exhaust the remedies available to you. And if you need to go to war, you go to war because you have a sense that the country has come to the point where it has no other option. I don't believe the president did that.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war if the French had said under no circumstances we would go to war with you?
KERRY: I would do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States.
MATTHEWS: We're going in circles here.
KERRY: No, we're not going in circles.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: In retrospective, Dean says, I think it was wrong to go to war. In retrospect, Lieberman says we were right to go to war. Dick Gephardt says we were right to go to war. John Edwards says we're right to go to war. General Clark says we're not right to get to war go to war. Where are you in that with that kind of clarity?
KERRY: I just answered I answered your question.
MATTHEWS: Were we right to have gone to war?
KERRY: I answered your question right up front. I said to you....
MATTHEWS: Well, yes or no?
KERRY: I said no. Not under the circumstances he went. I told you that, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So were we wrong to go to Iraq in war?
KERRY: The way the president did it, yes.
MATTHEWS: What was the right way to go to war?
KERRY: As a last resort, when you exhaust the remedies available to you and you have proven that you have to do it because there is no other alternative. In other words, in Iraq, we had a legitimate threat, according to every intelligence indicator we were given. But we hadn't built the coalition. We didn't have a plan to win the peace. The president rushed to war. I said so at the time. I said I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I don't know how you can be more clear than that.
http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=139

[Freya]

124. This stands

in sharp contrast to his speech on the senate floor just before the vote...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. Your characterization is false.

Senate Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq -- October 09, 2002

Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism - they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy - they best protect our troops and our national security.

Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the Administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the Administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq - seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms - and there are many in this body and beyond - can take heart in the fact that they have had an impact on the debate over how best to deal with the Iraqi threat and on the administration's attitudes and actions. The Bush Administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The Administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism - today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The Administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The Administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property - last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

<snip>

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:pQkuB4K9ZqAJ:www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html+kerry+treasure+iraq+disarm&hl=en

[BeFree]

125. Thanks, Feanorcurufinwe

Seem we have a few folks with mattehwitis here, eh? Same as with that dork interviewing the next President, some folks have a hard time understanding Kerry's intent.

Thanks for posting that snip. Hopefully all will read it until they get it.

[ibegurpard]

91. I'm not sure what your motive is.

But it would be better to leave this be. Many, many people do not believe this (myself included) and still plan to vote for Kerry/Edwards anyway. Bringing this up serves no purpose except to anger these people all over again.

[ulysses]

103. erm, as I recall,

Will Pitt posted an article a few months back detailing his and several others' meeting with Kerry, in which Kerry himself said that he'd been fooled.

[lojasmo]

162. "I've been fooled" is bushit

Unless Kerry is VERY stupid, which he isn't.

He was forced into an untenable position, and he took the bait in order to remain "electable" (sound familliar?)

[sampsonblk]

106. Yes HE DID

The troops were already in place, for the most part. Bush had sent an entire fleet of ships as well. All he was waiting for was a blank check - and he got it.

The resolution also left of to Bush to decide when the "last resort" arrived, when the diplomacy (such as there was) had been "extended" enough, and when the inspectors had finished their job.

That is voting for the war.

[G_j]

112. and can anyone explain why

the executive branch needed to be given more power than it was meant to have?

[jobycom]

126. No he didn't

I love this game!

[Forkboy]

107. How anyone can cram more stupid shit into just two paragraphs

is beyond me.

[porphyrian]

130. Damn, that just cracked me up! - n/t

[RichM]

109. Kerry voted on the side of Congressional Republicans on IWR. He

voted in the way most desired by Bush. He voted AGAINST the majority of Congressional Dems - as well as AGAINST the wishes of most of his own constituents.

Is that the vote you are trying so desperately to defend, by parsing the phrase "AS A LAST RESORT"?

If Kerry's vote was "correct," then Congressional Republicans were "correct." Since Kerry voted with Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, you must believe that Armey and DeLay were likewise "correct" on IWR - and that the votes of Byrd, Kennedy & Kucinich were "wrong."

[Solly Mack]

119. Precisely

"I only acted based on the info I was given"


Bush is using the same excuse, btw.

Yes, I know Bush is lying. But that doesn't change the fact that he's still saying the same thing.

[F.Gordon]

134. The Congressional Republicans......

would have voted for the IWR if it said "we need to stop Saddam from tearing the heads off Beanie Babies".

The Dems did what they could under enormous pressure. Did you know that the original language of the IWR proposed by bush* gave him the authority to "restore international peace and security in the region". It was the Dems that got this removed and the UN qualifier included as well as a Presidential Determination...related to the UN and the Iraqi threat.

[mondo joe]

115. Sorry but this spin is a bad bad idea

Kerry and Edwards need to say one of two things:

1. Based on what the President told us we thought it was the right thing to do - if we kne then what we know now we would not have voted for it

2. We voted for it because Iraq posed a real threat and the President needed real authority to wage war.

[KFC]

137. It Doesn't Really Matter

At this point the relevant question is who will manage the end of the war better - Kerry or Bush. I think I'll pick Kerry, thank you.

[malatesta1137]

146. So will I.

But it's relevant to set the record straight. If we let the Bush/Nader supporters continue to trash Kerry, not only there WON'T be an end to this war but several other wars will start.

[ScreamingMeemie]

148. For the last time: Kerry did vote for war. We all knew what was going

to happen when Bush had this vote in his hot little hand. If we knew it, Congress knew it. (or we did a bad job of picking our Senators) Is it going to keep me from voting for him? No. Am I going to let him slide on it? No. All I would like to see is an admission and apology. That's it. It was insider politics at its best, not anyone getting duped. They're not as stupid as they're portraying themselves to be.

[moondust]

150. IWR was a piece of sh*t.

It was:

1. A political wedge bulldozed into place by disgusting Repig politicians before a midterm election to try to trap their opponents in the "unpatriotic" box and win votes.

2. A preemptive snub of the U.N. bulldozed into place by Repig hegemonists who can't stand the U.N.

It was horrible, unnecessary "legislation" based in ignorance and dirty politics that never should have been taken seriously.

It was not a declaration of war.

[EndElectoral]

153. Kerry Speech on Senate Floor before 2002 Iraq Resolution!!!

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.
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 and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
….
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

[merh]

154. Thanks for this post!

I hadn't read the speech yet.

[malatesta1137]

155. Of course

the Bush/Nader/Kucinich crowd won't bother to read it.

Maybe they could only read this:

"In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States."

[G_j]

157. "the Bush/Nader/Kucinich crowd "

mercy, can't people have a conversation without resorting to the type of innuendo that is more fitting for RW radio? This has been done a number of times here, including in the original post. It is quite insulting. Why can't people have differing opinions?
Talk about lumping people together with a one size fits all brush!

And yes I did read it. I also read it it when he originally said it.

[sangh0]

161. Innuendo is as innuendo does

If you really are so dead set against "lumping people together with a one size fits all brush" you might want to consider those who think that anyone who voted for IWR "voted for war"

[ulysses]

158. that's all well and good.

Since you seem hell-bent on driving this into the ground, though, allow me to point out that a sentient zucchini would have known, in the fall of 2002, that Bush was going to invade Iraq at the first opportunity and that he would use Democratic votes for the IWR to put a "bipartisan" spin on the invasion. I have a hard time believing that Kerry didn't know that.

Personally, I've long since decided to vote for Kerry anyway, so whatever purpose you think you're serving by bringing this all up again and ranting about the "Bush/Nader/Kucinich crowd", I hope it's working out for you.