I was not duped.

[Zhade]

This is a repost from another thread, because I think my point is worth repeating. The thread in question began with the rationalization that Kerry and Edwards, among other pro-IWR Dems, were duped by the traitors in the White House.

Sorry - *I* was NOT duped.

Why? Because I listened to people like Scott Ritter.

I researched the shelf life of whatever chemical weapons Hussein might have had, and found them to be too short to still be active.

I read about Kamel, the defector who was selectively quoted that Hussein did have WMDs, but not quoted on the fact that he had destroyed them.

I read more than I thought possible about the entire situation. I wasn't duped. Neither were millions of people around the world, and neither, I'm sorry to say, were members of Congress.

But fine. Let's pretend this blatantly dishonest allegation happened. Here's what it would mean, were it true:

We cannot fault Republicans who voted for the war.

After all, they were "duped" too, right?

[wyldwolf]

1. I agree in part

Republicans were duped, too. The difference is the dems admit it.

Who was your guy in the primaries? Kucinich?

[not systems]

2. No kidding. I downloaded the UN report and it was plain as day...

that no large piles of WMD existed.

Just looking at the numbers that had existed vs.
what was destroyed by Ritter and the others in the
nineties and I knew there was no threat.

Only the blind could have missed the big lie before the war.

[kaitykaity]

3. Hindsight 20-20 is real easy, isn't it?

Give these people credit for finally speaking up instead of
busting their chops for not committing political suicide, which
is what it would have been had they taken the stand you
avow.

I wasn't fooled either.

But I also understand the climate in late 2002 was very
different than it is now. Thanks to Dean's spine transplant
and the passage of time, Bush blood is now in the Washington
water and the sharks are circling.

Let's get on with it.

[mike_c]

7. then why don't they repudiate their votes now?

sorry, that one won't hunt either. Numerous democrats did in fact vote against the IWR, and to my knowledge not one of them has suffered any political consequences for their courage.

Congressional votes in favor of the IWR were a failure of leadership, no matter how anyone tries to dress them up today. No excuse holds water- not the "I was duped" excuse, not the "Saddam had to be stopped" excuse, and most certainly not the "world is safer now that Saddam has been toppled" excuse. The truth is that a large number of Americans-- including many members of Congress-- voiced their objections and voted against the invasion of Iraq in the streets and in the congress. We were not fooled and we did not buy the lies. The democratic leadership did, by and large. Either that, or they really are complicit in seeking the same ultimate foreign policy objectives as the repigs.

[kaitykaity]

11. I don't know, why don't they?

Could it be that we're in Iraq now, and we need a Democratic
president to get our forces the hell out of there?

Yes, the Democratic leadership did fail us, and the disastrous
2002 elections were the result. Who needs Republican-lite when
they can vote for the real thing?

But that was then. This is now.

What you are suggesting may feel good, but what if Kerry and
Edwards cast that IWR vote out of conviction that they were
doing the right thing?

And now they have Bush on a spit, turning him around and around,
roasting him for his foolishness on Iraq, drawing a logical
contrast to what a sensible, responsible leader like Kerry
would do.

Dean's line fits here--you're seeking the perfect at the
expense of the good.

That's dumb.

[mike_c]

13. then they're fools who do not deserve the office they already...

...hold, let alone a promotion. Or they're co-conspirators.

what if Kerry and Edwards cast that IWR vote out of conviction that they were doing the right thing?

[kaitykaity]

18. That's a trip into tinfoilhat land and sure as hell won't

won't win us any converts in mid-America. What, do you want
Bush to have another four years?

As far as their being co-conspirators, they voted to authorize
Bush to go the UN and to continue with the weapons inspections.
It was Bush to took the short cut of war first. Don't blame
Kerry and Edwards for that.

[mike_c]

27. sure-- invading was a last resort....

That's the ticket.

[GreenArrow]

44. just because it won't win any converts

doesn't make it untrue.

[kaitykaity]

51. Spoken like someone who doesn't care

if Bush steals another four years.

Oh, great. /sarcasm off

[DjTj]

32. what if...

What if George W. Bush is President for the next four years?

That's the only "what if" that's going to be on my mind at the ballot box in November.

[GreenArrow]

43. "to what a sensible, responsible leader like Kerry"

which would have been to assure UN support in our raping and pillaging of Iraq. We still would have gone. And there still would have been no WMD.

[kaitykaity]

52. Oh, balderdash.

No, we would not have gone.

I guess people don't listen to Kerry, or think he's
a Manchurian for the PNAC people.

We only went into Iraq when we did because Bush didn't
want to wait.

Kerry doesn't have the arrogance or the itch.

[Beam Me Up]

53. I absolutely DETEST this kind of IMMORAL argument.

They may be "roasting" Bush but meanwhile OVER 1,000 Americans have been killed and injured and THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens, many of them women and children have been LITERALLY ROASTED by explosives and gunfire, their bodies burned and dismembered.

Anyone who supported this war should be ASHAMED of themselves PERIOD! NO EXCUSES. Anyone with half a brain KNEW it was an war for oil and profit and had absolutely NOTHING to do with either WMD much less "Democracy."

BULL SHIT! :grr:

[kaitykaity]

56. Well, I'm glad the cockles of the moral superiority

are warm and safe and sound.

I absolutely DETEST the attitude that "Only I know what
is good and right and pure and EVERYONE must conform to
MY IDEA of what is right and pure and good or I have the
right to DETEST them."

:puke:

[Beam Me Up]

66. I have no trouble with moral superiority

An unprovoked attack on a civilian population is MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

So, right back at you, sister! :grr:

[kaitykaity]

67. Our guys didn't attack the civilian population.

Bush did.

So direct the energy and passion and the real culprit in
this tragedy and stop trying to make Kerry and Edwards
take a position that #1 the right will crucify them for and
#2 could very well cost them THE GODDAMN ELECTION.

Yes, the Iraq invasion was morally indefensible.
And? What are you going to do about it? Or are you
going to sit back and smugly judge, which feels real good
but is absurdly unproductive, or are you going to work
to get Kerry elected in November?

Yeah, it's an either/or proposition. Politics is the
name of the game, and you need to either play to win or
you need to reveal your true motives in the exercise.

Your move.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

12. My stance never wavered.

Hindsight has zero to do with this. If you'd like, I can show you the letters I wrote to my senators about why I was opposed to the war from before the first bomb dropped.

[kaitykaity]

16. Oh, I believe you.

Are you a politician?

Do you remember what life was like for Tom "bin Laden" Daschle
after the anthrax attacks?

All I'm saying is it's real easy to look back from where we are
now and bitch and gripe and moan and groan because our leaders
weren't pure and perfect.

It's also a waste of time.

[GreenArrow]

46. "our leaders"

who in the hell are these people supposed to work FOR anyway?

[kaitykaity]

54. Us.

If we have lousy leaders (not my opinion, just a question)
whose fault is that?

Uh, that would be ours.

[quaker bill]

22. No it was 20-20 foresight.

Millions of people knew better and it did not take all that much study. I do not buy the notion that our democratic "leaders" were faultless political victims.

To some significant extent we count on our "leaders" to create the political environment. It is their job. It is the only reason we hire these people. They are not hired to be helpless pawns in the republican political game. They are hired to be players on the opposing side of the board.

It seems that the Bush team was on the job creating a political environment to favor their policy choices. It is a shame that guys like Bob Graham and Robert Byrd had to stand alone on our side.

[kaitykaity]

29. Yeah, and lesson learned, thanks to

(repeating myself here) the Howard Dean spine transplant.

If the Dem leaders were the way they were then right now
then you'd have every right to bitch. Good news is
the Dem Party realized how mad we all were, and they stood
up and started paying attetion.

Quit kvetching and get in line. The battle is on and we
have a couple of guys out there who are ready to fight it.
Attacking our own candidates plays right into the Thug's
hands.

And I'll repeat, that's just dumb.

[quaker bill]

39. They sort of started paying attention

Note that they removed any mention that the war was a mistake from the platform this week.

"Get in line" sounds more than a bit like "Get over it Soreloserman" from 2000. Sorry, I didn't go there then and I am not going there now.

That being aside, I have my yard signs and Kerry can count on my vote.

[kaitykaity]

49. I'm just tired of the Democrats' circular firing squads.

When I say "get in line" that's what I'm trying
to avoid.

The Thugs use our nature--our tendency not to march
in lockstep--against us, and I'm trying to say "let's
avoid that, shall we?"

[Redleg]

58. Well stated. A cogent comment.

Of course some of the shreakers here won't care what you have to say.

[ScreamingMeemie]

60. I'm not a shrieker, I'm just angry that they won't come out and admit

they made a mistake in backing this. People have died. Oh well, is not an option for me. I agree in part, but I'm looking for accountability and I'm not willing to let them slide on this. I'm still incredulous that they allowed this to happen.

[Redleg]

61. I guess I incorrectly spelled "shrieker."

I wasn't referring to you in particular. I appreciate that we shouldn't let people slide on this but I still think we should direct our ire toward Bushco instead of our Dem officials who were bullied into supporting the resolution 1441.

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. Honestly, I didn't notice that you had mispelled it. I understood your

message. :hi: I agree with you that Bush is at fault. But, on the other hand, I'm not willing to give my congresspeople a free pass. I cannot and will not do it. He shouldn't have introduced the farce, they shouldn't have fallen in line behind it. If they hadn't, a few more daddies and mommies would be home with their children. :(

[kaitykaity]

65. Thanks.

I was starting to feel lonely in here.

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

59. I agree with you kaitykaity, but I do wish our congresspeople would

be more accountable for their actions. It angers me that they are taking an "oh well" attitude, as if hundreds of soldiers haven't died over it. That's what saddens me. It isn't right that not one will admit to a glaring mistake and falling for insider politics.

That said, Hope you are doing awesome kaitykaity. I thought of you while watching Dean/Nader the other day! :hi:

[kaitykaity]

63. Howard did really well, didn't he?

I got to listen -- I couldn't get the CSPAN video link to
work to save my life. I'll probably try again this weekend.
I really enjoyed hearing him beat up on Ralphie boy, who is
getting black eyes out here in Oregon for his alliance with
the Thugs. Portland was one of Ralphie's hot spots back in
2000, and the apathy for him now is very satisfying.

I just think there's a time to criticize our leaders and
there's a time to get on with this fight and kick Bush out
of the White House. I think you can guess what time I think
it is.

I'm doing well. I hope life is treating you good also.
(I think I've got the WFH situation all worked out now.
You were my inspiration.)

:hi: :hug: :hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. And I agree with you completely on that!

Life is good. I'm feeling better, back on my feet. Glad things are going so good for you! PM some time!

:hug:

[Generator]

4. Great, we'll write your name on the ballott instead of Kerry

Is the point of this, "I'm superior" and that there is no difference between Republicans and Dems but DAMN I'm smarter and better than THEM. Then, you win!

I was duped as were most of the people in this country. We are all idiots and fools, right? You've got my vote! I love people that make me feel stupid and guilty!

That's my point. It's about getting Shrubco out of office, not about casting blame. Which is most important?

[mike_c]

10. you really believed that Bush* did everything in his power...

...to avoid war with Iraq, and the IWR and saber-rattling during the run up to the invasion was not just political window dressing to cover the neo-cons intention to invade Iraq from the beginning? You were duped? Come on. That is only possible if your head was firmly inserted somewhere well hidden from sunlight.

[Zhade]

14. You miss my point entirely.

It's not about superiority. It's about accountability, and the fact that we either blame both Dems and Republicans for voting for the war, or we blame neither for voting for the war.

Both parties voted for the exact same resolution. To blame the Republicans, and not the Dems, is sheer hypocrisy.

That's my point.

[homelandpunk]

31. Dude. Your logic is supreme on this point. Those who scoff

need a course in logic. I commend your insight, and your challenge to those who cannot own up to the logical implications, and what it means for us as Democrats.

[TeacherCreature]

41. could your write me in as VP?

I wasn't duped either and I need the salary and benefits more than Edwards does.

[classof56]

5. Oh, probably

Bush and cronies were like a moving train that would not be stopped, no matter what. I for one stood on a street corner in protest to the war, wrote letters to my congresspeople, etc., but I knew it would not derail the train. It's the post-911 syndrome, and unfortunately for all of us, the moving train is now a major wreck, a disaster from which we may never be fully extricated.

Bush, of course, bears the full blame. As someone once told me in college, a dictatorship is fine, as long as you agree with the dictator. It's time to call in the chips and send Bush and crowd packing. They've done enough damage. Many were duped--let them now be un-duped and let us reclaim our country. This dictator must fully understand how many of us do NOT agree with him and he must go!

Tired Old Cynic

[Eric J in MN]

6. I didn't find Colin Powell's presentaton persuasive.

Powell played a tape of 2 people supposedly conspiring to hide wmds, without saying when or where the recording was made or who the people were.

I thought that was bogus.

If Powell had to stoop to such an unexplained tape, it made him un-believable.

[WilliamPitt]

8. You're a Senator. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

looks you in the eye and lies to your face. As do several Admirals. What they tell you contravenes Ritter and a lot of what you've seen, and you don't absolutely know they're lying. If you did, if you absolutely refused to believe any high official of the government when they give you military inteligence, you wouldn't be a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee.

I don't give a second thought to the Senators who voted for this thing anymore. Dem or GOP. The vote was to authorize a use of force that was promised to be used as an incentive to Hussein to avoid interfering with the weapons inspectors. If you have read Ritter, you know that Hussein messed with the inspectors all through the '90s, that the threat and/or use of force was often the keys to several important doors.

The vote was needed to make sure the inspections got done. If I were a Senator, and the CIA Director along with several Admirals told me the stuff was there, and so we needed to do the best possible inspections we could, and doing the best we could involved holding a club over Saddam Hussein, I would have voted 'yes'.

The Senate didn't start the war. Kerry didn't want the war. Bush took the authority he was given and committed mass murder. I think you forget who the criminals are.

[RichM]

21. So, why did highly principled figures like DK, Wellstone, etc, oppose

the IWR; while politicians widely recognized to be opportunists - like Kerry, Hillary, etc -- vote for it? Just coincidence?

It isn't a coincidence that virtually ALL Republicans in congress voted 'Aye.' Nor is it coincidence that most members of the Progressive Caucus opposed it. And the fact that Kerry voted for it, and that he is now talking the sleezy language of "achieving success in Iraq" (while telling us we need not "revisit" the history of why we invaded in the first place) -- this is also no coincidence.

Kerry has not disputed the basic Bush 'explanation' for the invasion: that it was a matter of defending America from Saddam's WMD. He has never mentioned the word "oil;" he has never mentioned the lure of building 14 big military bases in Iraq. Thus, he has allowed Bush's original lie to stand unchallenged. He has only quibbled about the degree of internationalizing, & the planning for the occupation. Meanwhile, he has allowed major US war crimes to go totally unremarked upon.

You are aware, aren't you, that "success" in Iraq means pacifying the resistance and implanting a US puppet government there? That is what Kerry thinks is a desirable outcome.

Do you think that is a desirable outcome?

[homelandpunk]

33. "politicians widely recognized to be opportunists - like Kerry, Hillary"

did vote for it. Those like Wellstone, did not. You are so right.
Look people. Vote for Kerry, support him, talk him up, all good. But it amazes me to see the counter argument in this particular debate to make excuses for something inexcusable.
Look. Support Kerry. But don't argue how he was duped cuz a general looked him in the eye. Just don't argue this.
Kerry is your candidate. Good. But don't make excuses for him in this particular issue. The dog ain't gonna hunt.

[Beam Me Up]

55. Thank you, RichM, for accurately framing the question! n/t

[quaker bill]

23. They do not get off this easy

I am sorry, but these men were not helpless political victims. Spineless political leaders who were outplayed by the opposition perhaps, but not helpless victims. We elect these people to lead not to be lead.

It is the job of our leaders to create a political environment favorable to their policy choices. This is why we hire them. The Bush team got about it and our guys didn't. It is truly a shame that men like Bob Graham (Ranking Democratic Member, Senate Intelligence Committee, who concluded the intelligence was bogus) and Robert Byrd had to stand more or less alone on this.

The plain english reading of IWR is straightforward. It gave Bush the authority to use unilateral military force at his discretion. You are correct, Bush made the war.

However, you do not give the car keys to the 13 year old boy and expect responsible behavior. Better yet, then expect to come back after the entirely predictable wreck claiming "I had no idea he would act so irresponsibly, and I do not approve of how he chose to drive the car."

The entire line of logic is weak. The use of it only confirms how frail our convictions have become. I caution you away from it.

That being said, I think it is time we took the keys back from the 13 year old. I am voting for Kerry.

[TeacherCreature]

42. That is a very dramatic picture you paint

But it is all drama and no reality. Lots of democratic party congress people and a handful of senators managed to get it right.

[nolabels]

9. I was in some ways

But mostly in the thinking that someone had to notice something a mis

USA: Breaking with the Bourgeoisie
Students not Duped

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the American ruling class and its media microphone have been sounding the call of nationalism, expecting everyone else to fall in line. Unfortunately for them, a significant number of students have decided not to adhere to this most "democratic" ideal, rejecting the bellicose rhetoric of the bourgeoisie and fully understanding the hidden implications of the "us vs. them" mentality.

The fact of the matter is, we have not been duped. Despite the incessant replaying of "God Bless America", the astounding ability of Bush to read a doctored speech, and permanent captions titled "New war on terrorism" defacing the bottom-third of TV screens tuned onto any mainstream news station, many Americans are not falling in with the party line or marching to the drums of war. The ugly, unrelenting realities of the current economic and political situation are far too grotesque to be covered up even by the world's finest propaganda machine: weakening and failure of industries, large-scale layoffs, the spate of racist attacks, and the nature of U.S. foreign policy has many students questioning the value of going to war with a nation of fleeing peasants.

On September 14th, thousands of New Yorkers took to the streets to make it clear that they are opposed to war-just three days after the bombing and in the most hard-hit state. Shortly after, over 150 college campuses also made it clear that a significant number of students were opposed to war, and the DC rally of last weekend drove the point home: no to war. That the media has decided to largely ignore this fact in its press coverage changes nothing, and only reflects the drunken stupor of illusion that the capitalists still finds themselves in.

Here in Boston, there have been a number of anti-war rallies, vigils, and teach-ins from a broad ideological spectrum. A weekly peace vigil in a public square usually draws a turnout of 100-150 people who hold signs reading "no more victims anywhere", and activists hand out contact information for all kinds of anti-war and anti-racist organizations, as well as contact information of prominent political officials for "call-ins". Two weeks ago, one teach-in featuring Howard Zinn and another leftwing speaker drew a massive crowd of a few hundred people that overflowed out into the hallways. In the latter case, the general sentiment went beyond a moralistic condemnation of war in general and extended to a criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
(snip)
http://www.marxist.com/usa/breaking_bourgeoisie1001.html

Reminds me when I was young. Had them thoughts a lot of people were lying just to get over on others. Guess things don't always change that much :-)

[markses]

15. Not only was I not duped by the criminal Bush, I wasn't duped by Clinton

I knew in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the whole claim was little more than a containment operation and a smoekscreen for Western hegemony. And so did the fucking CIA, and so did Bill Clinton. Anyone with a fucking brain knew, it seems to me.

[GreenArrow]

48. yep, and interestingly Bill Clinton

is still trumpeting it. Iraq was on the chopping block for a good long while before Bush got into office.

[FlemingsGhost]

17. I was. I truly thought Americans were smarter, braver.

I was wrong.

[MORON]

19. Speaking of Dumb...The World Stupidity Awards are coming....

http://stupidityawards.com/

[creeksneakers2]

20. Bush knew something nobody else did.

For a week, the White House sales strategy was centered on a speech Colin Powell was to give to the U.N. Colin Powell spent days at the CIA refusing to go along with his task. Powell, who was briefed with the truth by his State Department aides, thought the intelligence was bogus.

It seems almost impossible that Bush didn't know about this. Even if he was totally out of the loop, Powell should have told him. If Bush was that out of the loop the public needs to know that now.

If Bush had any interest in the truth he would have asked Powell to explain the problem. With a small amount of follow up Bush would have been advised by Powell's State Department aides that the intelligence was flawed.

I believe Bush did know. I believe Colin Powell told him. I believe Colin Powell lied because Bush ordered him to. I still like Powell and just can't see him deciding to lie like that on his own. He can be pretty honest.

I agree with you that it was apparent before the war that there was inaccurate intelligence. The press reported that the aluminum tubes probably weren't for centrifuges. The Niger document turned out to be a forgery. Satellite images that were given to UN inspectors led to nothing. There were plenty of reasons to doubt the evidence.

There was no way to know for certain that there were no WMD. Lack of evidence does not prove a thing doesn't exist. It would have taken a heroic member of Congress to question whether they were there or not. At the time, anybody who wasn't 100% behind the war was labeled a traitor. A member would have to risk a horrifying WMD attack on American troops after the member said there were no WMD. It would have ended his career.

Before Bush came along no members of Congress were calling for an invasion of Iraq. The whole thing was bullied through. Bush must take full responsibility for this war.

[quaker bill]

25. Here is the problem with that line of thought

You can never prove a negative, so where do you stop? Country X has WMD, we have inspected, but we cannot find them, therefore they must be hiding them. Their concealment of the WMD proves their intent to do something terrible, like give them to terrorists. You don't support terrorists do you? Surely then you will vote to authorize our proposed military action to disarm them.

[walldude]

24. Not duped here either

I smelled a rat from day 1. IMHO being duped is no excuse (for the politicians), when you are planning to bomb a country and kill thousands of people you better make damn sure you are right. This "faulty evidence" shit don't fly with me. My tax dollars have supported the slaughter of innocents. No WMD, no threat, no links to 9/11, no reason.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. Anyone who was on DU at the time...

of the lead-up to the invasion was not duped. They may have refused to see the truth, but they were not duped.

The evidence against Bush & Co. was here everyday, on the pages of DU. Within 48 hours of Powell's speech to the UN we had the proof right here that what he was claiming was either an outright lie or widely disputed in the intel/scientific communities. Within hours of the Bush speech to Congress we had proof his claims on Saddam and yellow cake were bullshit. We had thread after thread, day after day blowing Bush & Co. out of the fucking water on every lie they tried to make us swallow before the invasion.

But the thing I remember most was the DUers who took those news articles and research threads and sent them to their representatives any way they could. They called, they faxed, they emailed article after article after article begging our Reps to read them and wake the hell up.

So anytime I see/here someone -- especially here on DU or in politics -- claim they were duped, I just have to call bullshit.

There were plenty of DUers and plenty of members of Congress who weren't "duped".

It's amazing how the collective memory has changed in just a little over a year. It will be interesting what the history books will claim is the "truth" about Iraqi invasion someday.

Luckily, I was here at DU, so I will always know what the Truth was. :)

[EndElectoral]

28. Kerry Speech on Senate Floor before 2002 Iraqi Resolution!!!

I don't know why the media didn't cover men like Byrd, Leahy and Kerry's speeches during this time. But read Kerry's remarks below. I think he speaks for himself quite eloquently, now if only Lesley Stahl would let him speak and not narrate over his voice. The word IMMINENT comes up a lot in those speeches. But I thought the WH said they never said it was IMMINENT. Quite different from what we read below from the Senate Floor.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry...

"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."

[John_H]

30. Can you congratulate me along w/ yourself?

Will you be voting for Kerry since, unlike chimp and the PNAC, neo-cons, he also has the good sense to agree with you on (I hope) many other issues, unlessof course you subscribe to the Southern Freeper approach to voting--throwing hundreds of issues out the window 'cause a candidate voted for the one jesus hates most.

[Pastiche423]

34. In September and into October 2002

there was a large group of DUers that watched the Senate every day they were in session. We came to call ourselves the "Byrd Watchers".

We weren't duped.

We listened to the 84 year old Senator Robert C. Byrd, stand alone for hours on end, urging his fellow lawmakers to come to their senses and READ Our Constitution and to do the job they were elected to do. Don't give bush a blank check, he pleaded over and over again. We heard that every senator's office was bombarded w/pleas to vote NO on the resolution.

After the Senate session had ended for the day, many of us did our own research. We read that many of the military brass were against it. Scott Ritter, who had been a weapons inpsector IN Iraq, told us Iraq no longer had WMD.

This was months before Powell addressed the UN.

No, we were not duped. And neither were John Kerry and John Edwards.

It's all in the DU archives. Check it out.

[sandnsea]

35. Voted For INSPECTORS

A process to get inspectors into Iraq and if it were followed, we wouldn't have gone to war. I know it really puts a kink in your self-righteous back slapping, but that was the right thing to do. I don't care if Republicans in Congress "get off the hook". I care that Bush is held accountable for HIS lies, HIS pressuring the CIA on the intelligence, HIS rush to war.

[vision]

36. The problem was with the wording of the resolution

it gave the President the authority to say when we had run out of options. It gave the President the authority to start a war and than to justifiy it he had to "only" state that in his view it was the last resort. The resolution gave all the power to decide to the President, like Pontius Pilate Congress washed thier hands of the decision and left it the mob or in this case to Bush.

Bryd and others were saying that war is Congress' responsiblity to declare and to give it up to anybod else was irresponsible.

[sandnsea]

38. The President always decides

He's the friggin' Commander in Chief. I don't give a shit how many Democrats said different. Whether there's a Declaration of War or the IWR, the President ALWAYS has the final say when military troops are deployed. And nobody expects a President to launch a war based on lies or when it isn't necessary, even with a Declaration of War.

I don't know why people want Bush for four more years, that's all this stupid war vote shit will accomplish.

[TeacherCreature]

47. NOBODY wants to give bush four more years

We just don't want to sweep billions of tax payer dollars and thousands of dead people under the rug. With Kerry taking a hard right in political opinions some of us are wondering why we should bother going to the polls at all.

[TeacherCreature]

45. how very 1984 of you

Kedwards did not vote for inspectors. They voted to give bush a blank check. The evidence is that Bush got a blank check and did exactly what we expected him to do with it.

[jpgray]

37. Careful--you're misrepresenting a few things

Ritter only gave ample evidence that Saddam did not have WMD in any significant quantity, and certainly did not have much capacity to make them. There was overwhelming evidence that Saddam was nowhere near to even beginning to reconstitute his nuclear program. Ritter does note that a lot of inspection work had to be done to get Iraq to admit to an ability to manufacture various chemical weapons, but that work also led to wholesale dismantling of all his WMD infrastructure. Unfortunately, the inspectors were pulled out, and the new inspections weren't given anything near a reasonable amount of time.

With all those caveats, the Senate still has a lot to answer for. No one 'knew' that there were no WMD, but anyone with a brain should have known that it was almost impossible that they were there in any numbers--certainly they were not a 'threat' in the way the administration would have had you believe.

edit: And please note, your misrepresentations are rather ironic in this thread, where you are so angry about others doing the same. If you want to find fault with congresscritters over this, there's plenty to be found without simplifying things.

[OneTwentyoNine]

40. Marching in freezing weather in February here in Kansas...

In Newton,Ks in Feb myself and a few hundred more weren't duped Mr.Bush!! Your privy to better intel that what I had and yet I WASN'T DUPED.

Chimp wanted this War for corporate greed no matter what the intel said and he had plenty. It was BS then its BS now. How many people in Government are going to take the fall for Chimp,Cheney and Rummy??

David

[porphyrian]

50. Career Politicians Suck

However, until someone who doesn't suck can get electable, with whatever that entails, I'll still pick the lesser piece of shit over the greater.

[Redleg]

57. Yes we can fault Republicans because they wanted the war

regardless of the truth about WMDs.