Tell me again, why did Kerry & Edwards vote to give Bush authority?

[kentuck]

to use force if necessary in Iraq? Did they think he was wise enough not to use force and would use all diplomatic channels? Did htey think they were not voting to go to war? What is their explanation, assuming they believe similarly? Can someone explain their position in a clear and concise manner without sounding like a "politician"?

[Selwynn]

1. They wanted to keep their jobs, so they supported 80% popular President

There is not greater explaination. Voting against the war was the unpopular thing to do back then, so they went with the flow to save face.

Kerry knew he wanted to run for President and the last thing he could afford to do is stick out like a sore thumb in november.

[merh]

6. thank you for that simple and logical explanation. (n/t)

[truthspeaker]

8. I agree, and I also think it was a faulty assessment

Real leaders would have had the courage to say Bush was wrong, no matter how popular. Wellstone and Kucinich did, among others.

[Selwynn]

15. I agree - but that's politics for ya.

[WI_DEM]

9. I think that is the correct answer

If he wasn't running for president would Kerry have voted with his collegue, Sen. Kennedy?

Edwards also realized he was running for president and even if he ran for re-election he probably figured politically it is best to vote with Bush on this.

[underpants]

22. Mmmmm- not 80% try mid 50's low 60's

[Selwynn]

31. Incorrect - Bush was polling at 78% on the day of the IWR

according to CNN/TIME, and hell, just about any other media source I saw.

That's enormously high. What's more is any article you go to at the time of the IWR described Bush as a "very popular Wartime President" becuase that's EXACTLY what he was back then.

[underpants]

36. Oct. 11, 2002 it was right in the middle of the 50's

Congress Passes Iraq War Resolution

The Associated Press
October 11, 2002


http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/ap101102.html

[Selwynn]

53. I didn't see in that article that it said middle of the 50s

and despite what your graphic shows, I remember the media reporting his numbers in the 70s, becuase I remember thinking what a joke that was, but also knowing the IRW would pass because of that. I also remember that the media name for Bush at this time was "a popular wartime president."

[underpants]

74. I just got the date ( I forgot the date) from that article

and then looked at the graphic. :shrug:

I didn't mean (originally) to say you were wrong-I thought the same thing. Funny how the press really can sink something into your memory.

[Selwynn]

90. No, I understand - I wasn't irritated, I just remember clearly the media..

...talking about how popular bush was, and its confusing now..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Well, I'm sure the dead and wounded will be comforted.

We sure wouldn't want anyone to be unpopular, even if it does cost about 20,000 dead.

[Selwynn]

102. I never said it was right - I only said that's what happened.

If you feel you would act differently, please - please run for office. I'll support you.

[stavka]

68. That's EXACTLY how I see it........

MILLIONS figured that out when the war vote was being taken, but these two doorknobs lacked the moral courage to make the tough choice and say no! 23 Senators (inclduing my own) didn't vote for it, but they did.

I'm still voting for them, and continue to contribute.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

A measure to authorize war in the event that a) Saddam Hussein doesn't comply (and the truth was he had/couldn't)

b) that only the President could decide if he had complied.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. They were lied to, pure and simple

lots of people were pulled in by the misinformation, they were no different. It retrospect maybe they should have been more cynical.

[TeacherCreature]

43. almost no one believes that

We know they were not "pulled in".

[WI_DEM]

3. this still bothers me too

and it is the one area where they are vulnerable in a debate with Cheney or Bush as when either of them turns to Kerry and Edwards and says what Cheney said yesterday, "you saw the intelligence, you came to the briefings and you voted for the resolution..." now I know there are lots of subtle other points that people make such as they were voting for broader UN participation or inspections, but Mr. and Mrs. Average voter in many instances won't understand that. Also perceptive people like Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Feingold, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Graham and others also saw the same intelligence and heard the same arguements and voted against the resolution.

[emulatorloo]

12. Mr and Mrs Average Voter now feel fooled by Cheney Bush et al

so Cheney's BS is not going to work.

[Qutzupalotl]

56. What they could say in response

"Yes, but I didn't lean on the intelligence communities to give us the answer we wanted, like the Vice President did. Now they're trying to sell us a cock and bull story that it was all just an intelligence failure. It was NOT an intelligence failure. It was corruption at the highest levels of government, and it's time we cleaned house!"

[22181]

4. I think...

That like the rest of us, they were innocently duped. While I suspected many evil things from that person camping out in the White House, even I was surprised that he lied to us & everyone else so blatantly. I think they likely were too.

It just depended on which information you believed to be credible, and whose word you trusted. It sounds to me like they trusted the person the supreme court appointed President and that was their mistake. I don't see it as a flaw at all. They've learned from their mistake.

[truthspeaker]

13. speak for yourself, I wasn't duped

It should have been obvious Bush was lying. And it was obvious to some.

But I do think what you say is the best approach for Kerry and Edwards: "We saw the same fake intelligence you did, but we didn't realize you were lying to us. We'll never make that mistake again."

[emulatorloo]

20. I wasn't duped either, but I didn't see all the "Top-Secret" crap they saw

Even Wes Clark says he was convinced when Rummy told him they knew where 90% of the WMDs were

[Toot]

24. Bob Graham saw the "Top-Secret" crap and he still voted against IWR,

so it's hard for me to buy the duped argument.

[emulatorloo]

29. Good for him!

I am proud of every Dem who voted against it.

But I don't vilify those who voted for it, because I can understand their reasons -

Maybe the intel is questionable, but why not force Saddam's hand and get the inspectors in? Powell is promising us they will do everything to avoid going to war.

[Dhalgren]

80. Even if all the things you say are true,

about "questionable intel" and "forcing Saddam's hand", etc., it still doesn't explain the need for the resolution. All the things Bush and his supporters said (Repub and Dem) could be done without any resolution. Why have it, at all? Robert Byrd explained why before the vote - it was to give Bush cover for what he had already planned to do. But most of our elected officials would not listen to Byrd. Too bad...

[emulatorloo]

98. The claims were that they needed the resolution to get more support from

the UN in form of resolutions, and to show Saddam that the country was serious about getting him to disarm.

[democratreformed]

71. So did my congressman - Vic Snyder

I love that man!

[22181]

61. Well two things to note about me...

1. I'm very gullible. Always have been. I like to believe people are telling the truth, therefore I almost always do.

2. I really hoped beyond hope that * wasn't lying. I didn't think it was possible for someone in that position to lie so blatantly. I mean, now that I've read "The Final Days" about Richard Nixon and Watergate I know that it not IS possible but it's also all been done before by another repug criminal President, but you can't blame a girl for hoping...

[Selwynn]

17. HA. HA HA! I was never duped, no one should have been.

There was more than enough evidence of their deciet and manipulation of fact before one foot ever hit the ground in Iraq.

[Beam Me Up]

77. I was not duped. Neither were they.

We here at DU have been aound this numerous times. Some uninformed people may have been duped but I do not accept that Senators have less access to good inteligence than I do and I'm nobody.

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. I sure as hell wasn't duped either.

n/t

[Gloria]

5. The LA TImes asked the same question yesterday in an editorial

They mentioned the word "character" in relation to getting a straight answer....Wait till the GOP pick up on this approach........

[emulatorloo]

7. Because Colin Powell promised them

that they would do everything to avoid going to war.


But now we know Colin was out of the loop.

[G_j]

10. and why

did the executive branch suddenly need more power?

[Dhalgren]

84. That is the question!

The Exectutive did not need more power, it needed political cover - and that's what it got. ANd that's what is going to bite Kerry/Edwards in the ass (at least on the war issue).

[belladonna]

11. A serious question

Will any explanation be good enough? Surely you've been around DU long enough to see pretty much every explanation that's been put out there. Why do you want to hear it again? Looking for a flame war? Want to assure yourself once again that Kerry and Edwards are warmongering bastards who don't deserve your vote? Assuage any guilt you might feel at getting Bush re-elected should you decide to withhold said vote from Kerry-Edwards?

Okay, more than one question.... got any answers?

[kentuck]

23. Yes.

I want to see Kerry and Edwards respond to the question in such a way that voters will trust them and vote for them in November.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. They made their bed, they have to lay in it

They can't all of a sudden say, "Oh, knowing what we know now, it was the wrong decission." They voted for the war, and now they have to defend doing so.

[democratreformed]

75. Yes, I also want that.

I want an answer that is good enough that I will be confident in victory. I want to quit worrying about how that is going to affect the outcome of the election. I want Bush out, dammit. And, I am fearful of anything that might keep that from happening.

On the other hand, it's probably nothing to worry about since the majority of our fellow citizens actually were in favor of the war. They may not be now, but, that actually helps. Since they were fooled, it is easier to accept the argument that Kerry and Edwards were fooled.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Read Ritter

No weapons inspections in Iraq were effective, ever, without the threat and/or use of force. The threat of force had to be on the table to make sure the inspections got done without disruption or interference.

[emulatorloo]

16. Don't confuse me with the facts n/t

[truthspeaker]

26. Actually that's a very good point

The IWR only authorized force if "diplomacy failed". Bush didn't wait for diplomacy to fail, he just decreed that it had. So you could make a case that Bush violated the letter and/or spirit of IWR.

Still, when dealing with an arrogant imbecile like Bush they should have been more specific.

[kentuck]

30. Just before the war, Saddam gave them unlimited acces but Bush said

it was too late. And gave him 48 hours to get out of town, is my recollection.

[emulatorloo]

32. Yes, Bush did that; however, what does that have to do w John Kerry?

Just more proof of Bush's rush to war and the promises his admin broke.

[kentuck]

35. That's true.

But the threat of force was already there but we were told we couldn't wait. They lied.

[GreenArrow]

78. failed diplomacy was built into the plan

"abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as per D. Rumsfeld.

Dick Perle said outright we were going in no matter what.

Do you supppose that if the inspectors had been allowed to continue their job, and had found nothing, that the matter would have been laid to rest?

[TeacherCreature]

44. Read Ritter

He said that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq. He said that they sanctions had worked to contain Saddam and that bush's intelligence was faulty.

[WilliamPitt]

51. ...and that the threat of force was needed to make sure

Trust me. I wrote the book.

[Dhalgren]

88. But the "fact" is that a President does not have to have a

resolution in order to use force. The resolution was to give Bush political cover for the conquest of Iraq.

[underpants]

18. Well it is like.......uh........well sorta..........

Link to interview on the Today Show this morning

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5435976

Basically Edwards said that he thought Saddam was a threat and that they voted to give him the ability to take action but they had no control (and ASSumed that it was done) over planning for peace. They both voted against the $87 supplemental spending bill as a stand against HOW the war was been conducted. Couric pointed out that Kerry used to say it was about how it was funded, Edwards didn't really address that 0he should have said it is BOTH but that is probably not what Kerry has decided to go with.

Not the best excuse but it might work. Where are you going to go?

[Monte Carlo]

19. Sabre-rattling, I think.

Saddam would only behave if there was a direct consequence for his action. The threat of the American military is not a small one.

[Toot]

21. I'll answer and I know I'll probably get flamed but it's...

Because they were both going to run for President and they didn't want to look "weak" because "polls" showed that the American public agreed with the Pres.

I wasn't polled and I knew the Pres was full of it and I wish they had a spine like Bob Graham and some others did and voted against it.

But, that's all in the past and I'm still voting for Kerry because he's at least better than Bush.

[kentuck]

25. It is true that when most of DU was against the war, we were about 10%

of the population. So we did not take the popular position. I just want an honest answer. I will still vote for Kerry/Edwards but I would like for them to have a better response to this question because it's not going away...

[Malva Zebrina]

27. I honestly think they wanted to invade Iraq

after giving it some thought. None of the excuses carry any water.

It is not mentioned at all by either of them in any significant way. It is the elephant in the Democratic living room.

We tend to give our nominees some sort of mystical god status--they are the good, the noble,the true, the knights in shining armor.

I think they wanted the war and wanted the spoils.

my two cents

[chelsea0011]

28. 1. They were lied to 2. They didn't want to defend be called traitors

I had a discussion (read screaming argument) with a wacko right winger prior to the war. His screed was "it isn't that Sadaam can nuke us, it is just a matter of how soon". That was the tone which seems like ages ago but only a couple of years ago. The politicians didn't want to alienate the freaks on the right, whether or not they would ever get their vote. In other words, the Dems were cowardly for voting with Bush and not questioning the information that was available.

[kentuck]

33. I'm sure they saw Jay Rockefeller on MTP....

and Rockefeller said if he'd had all the information he now has, he would not have voted for it and doubted that the majority of Senators would have voted for it. After hearing his response, which I thought was honest, Kerry and Edwards say they would still have voted for it???? That puzzled me.

[emulatorloo]

38. Show me where they say they still would have voted for it

They have not said that.

I am looking for the NYT interview, If I find I will post, but they have never said they would still vote for it.

Still vote to disarm somebody who had WMDs maybe.

[kentuck]

41. Perhaps someone else can help us out...?

but seems I recall that question being asked of Kerry specifically and that was his response - at least, that was my interpretation of his remarks??

[emulatorloo]

46. NYT interview

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/campaign/11TEXT.html


Q.What if the vote were today?


KERRY: Look, the vote is not today and that's it. I agree completely with Senator Edwards. It's a waste of time. It's not what this is about. We voted the way we voted based on the information in front of us, based on that moment in time. And it was the right vote at that time based on that information. Period. And this president not only abused the intelligence and the information, for which he is responsible, not just Mr. Tenet - not just the vice president, not Secretary Rumsfeld - the president. You know, Harry Truman's sign didn't say, "The buck stops at the Pentagon," or "The buck stops at the intelligence agency," and the fact is that we authorized the president to use force in a responsible way, and I have said for months, you know, I have said it to you, I have said it across the country: this president abused the authority that he was given, by abusing his own promises to the country as to how he would build a coalition and how he would go to war.

Q.Did he mislead you, did he mislead Congress, you, and the American people?

KERRY: Over a period of time, there were a number of misleading statements made by the president. He certainly misled America about nuclear involvement. And he misled America about the types of weapons that were there, and he misled America about how he would go about using the authority he was given. "Going to war as a last resort" means something to me. The president did not go to war as a last resort, period. Moreover it's the responsibility of a president, if you are going to go to war, having said we're going to do all that's necessary, to do all that's necessary. He didn't. Because he had no plan for winning the peace. It is utterly extraordinary the level of miscalculation of this administration, as to what they would find in Iraq and what was going to be necessary. They discarded their own professional military evaluations, from General Shinseki and others, they disrespected professional military careers, turned their backs on their own State Department's plans, and arrogantly believed. . . . And they were wrong. And soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong. And America's paying -billions of dollars because they were wrong, and allies are not with us because they were wrong. I think there is no greater responsibility of the president of the United States.

[kentuck]

48. That's a much better response than the one on MTP....

in which he did say that the president "abused the authority", as I recall? But, the NYTimes response above is quite good, imo.

[gratuitous]

34. Because they got played by the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer

It was naked power politics, a game the Republicans play exceedingly well and the Democrats don't play very well at all. Factor in the inherent power disparity between the President of the Nation and two lowly junior Senators from small states in the minority party, and it's pretty easy to see why they got rolled, willingly or not.

But the proper response to any question about voting for the invasion of Iraq is to say, "So, you're admitting that the President's invasion wasn't a good idea, then or now? I agree with that!"

[CWebster]

37. They still support it

That is what gets me.
Now that the entire country, which never really lent it's whole-hearted support for the invasion, having had stipulations of UN inspections and multi-lateral cooperation, even when being subjected to round the clock propaganda and fear-mongering, thinks it was a mistake. And when Kerry and Edward's own constituents opposed it by a wide margin--WHY do the Democrats still NOT officially declare it was a mistake when the population is now in the majority against it? Instead they try to define their position as contrasting with Bush as one of execution of the war. As if the Iraqis would've embraced an Invasion and occupation led by the Democrats any differently than by the Republicans. Killing is killing. Dead is dead and that is ultimately what war is all about. Instead, Kerry touts his military heroism in another military disaster as a thing of glory. Not only is his strutting as a response to Republican charges of weakness, suggesting that is what makes one credible compared with chickenhawks, it suggests as well that the Republican argument of military might is correct even in the face of disaster.
What a jerk!

[Kanary]

81. "Killing is killing, and dead is dead"

Exactly right.

We in the "west" get so wrapped up in our intellectualism that we miss the forest. We need the left brain, but leaving out the right brain isn't doing us any good.

I think many of the "non-voters" abstain precisely because of this fact. They're tired of all the intellectualizing, the spin, and prevarications.

They'd have a lot more respect for someone speaking from the heart, and being honest.

So, we can keep debating about the specific words that can be used, and circling those bushes over and over........ or we can start speaking from our hearts.

Kanary

[kentuck]

39. I suppose they could say....

"Listen, it would not be appropriate for either of us to comment negatively about the situation in Iraq, because those troops will soon be under our command. Whether it was right or wrong will be left to historians, but our job is to protect our troops and to protect our nation. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor."

[Hippo_Tron]

47. The Bush team would be able to spin that like crazy

Politics is a science. Every single word that you say in public (or sometimes in private) matters.

[kentuck]

49. What can't they spin like crazy ?

:)

[CWebster]

50. In the meantime more die everyday.

And in sending more troops, more die. Because if we really are being honest, it is not Saddam loyalists, it is not foreign fighters, it is your everyday Iraqi citizen, fighting the occupier, the torturer, the overlord, the thief of their natural resources and wealth, the destroyer of their homes, their lands, their cultural heritage, their honor. Sending more troops to impose a greater iron fist does not win hearts and minds and does not stop insurgency and increase security if the Iraqi struggle is against US.

See how reality is catching up with George Bush? That same brutal reality that crashes through illusion will hit the Democrats just as hard.

[sangh0]

40. Why should anyone bother?

It's being explained so many times already. If you didn't understand it the first five dozen times, what makes you think you'll get in on try #61?

[kentuck]

42. Thanks for your magnificent input...

You never fail to disappoint.

[sangh0]

58. And neither do you

Your post #55 shows you're not about to believe the explanations, and so your reuqest for information was not genuine. You didn't want to learn anything new. You just wanted a new excuse to rehash the matter.

[sangh0]

69. And i the futile hope that you actually care

here is, in Kerry's own words, the reason why he voted "Yes" on IWR

"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.

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."

[kentuck]

73. Thanks for the post, sangh0..

I do care.

[sangh0]

86. That's what Bush* says

When someone says "I care" about something, I judge the accuracy of the claim on the basis of what follows after "I do care"

[kentuck]

92. Go Cheney Yourself....

I hope you enjoy it. I care because I will still vote for Kerry but I would like to see a better response on this question which will continue to do him until he puts it to rest. Too bad you have to continue to question someones integrity or intent, simply for the sake of argument. Now go away and play with your X-games...

[sangh0]

95. I guess that's just another sign of your "interest" in discussing this

I would like to see a better response on this question which will continue to do him until he puts it to rest.

I see. You want someone on DU to explain Kerry's vote, but nothing any DUer will say will satisfy you because, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you will keep asking about this "until *HE* puts it to rest"

You admit there's nothing a DUer can say because you are waiting for KERRY to "put it to rest". So why do you keep asking DUers when you know the answer, and you know it doesn't satisfy you?

If you don't like the answer, criticize. It's dishonest to ask a question as if you were really didn't know the answer. You know the answer. You've heard it dozens of times. You just don't like the answer, so why not just come out and say that?

[sangh0]

96. Did you really NOT know the answer to these questions you asked?

Did they think he was wise enough not to use force and would use all diplomatic channels?

I'd like to see you deny that you've seen the quotes from Kerry's speech where he explains that he thought force should be "the last resort", and that Bush* should use diplomacy. If you've heard the quote, and I'm certain you have, then you already knew the answer, so why ask?

Did they think they were not voting to go to war?

I'd like to see you deny that think a vote for IWR was a vote for war.

What is their explanation, assuming they believe similarly?

You know what Kerry's explanation is. You've seen the quotes. So why do you ask about something as if you didn't already know?

Can someone explain their position in a clear and concise manner without sounding like a "politician"?

I'd like to see you deny that you hadn't already heard the explanation that Kerry voted yes in order to give Bush* the leverage to force Saddam to allow the inspectors to do their job.

You object when I question your integrity for asking questions you already knew the answer to. I haven't heard you defend yourself for asking questions you already knew the answer to.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. The better question is, did they know what Bush was up to?

And did they care? From what I've read here, if Bush were actually a decent president then voting for the war would be very justifiable because a decent president would've only gone to war as a LAST resort. The difference between Bush and a decent president, is that a decent president would have wanted to disarm Saddam. Bush didn't want to disarm Saddam, he wanted a war. So the better question is, did Kerry and Edwards know about PNAC, halliburton, and that Bush is a fool being advised by warmongers? Personally, if I had been their position I probably would've voted for the IWR if Bill Clinton had been president, but I would've not voted for it with Bush as president. Then again, if Clinton were president, we wouldn't have gone to Iraq as a response to 9/11 because Al-Quaeda wasn't there and Clinton wouldn't have lied about that.

[emulatorloo]

54. It is my understanding that Powell promised that diplomacy would run

its course and cooler heads in the admin would prevail.

But now we know he was out of the loop.

[kentuck]

55. And did they have any reason not to trust Bush ??

Well, he did steal an election.... :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

85. That became easy to forget after 9/11

As far as most were concerned he was a strong war president and that's all that they were focused on.

[G_j]

97. I also didn't find it reassuring that his Admin

was peppered with Iran-Contra players

[DjTj]

57. If they voted no and WMD's were found it would have been political suicide

The possibilities then were:

(1) Vote Yes. No WMD's found. Bush loses. Kerry and Edwards lose, but not as much as Bush (this is the situation we're in now)
(2) Vote Yes. WMD's are found. Bush wins. Kerry and Edwards lose nothing.
(3) Vote No. No WMD's found. Bush loses. Kerry and Edwards win.
(4) Vote No. WMD's are found. Bush wins. Kerry and Edwards lose big.

The only really bad scenario politically is #4, and they chose to avoid it. #1 could have been bad, but apparently it didn't keep them from becoming the Pres and VP nominees. Unless they were really sure there were no WMD's, which nobody was completely sure about, it was much safer to vote yes.

[CWebster]

59. And an unspeakable number of Iraqis died and were maimed

along with our own and other country's soldiers - for political calculation? That is the quality you seek to support? It was so transparent that they had NO case, but of course, Kerry wasn't interested in litening to Scott Ritter, and when it all went wrong, Kerry promised to be the first to speak out against the invasion. We are still waiting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. NO! Not died or maimed. "Collateral Damage".

Not "torture". Harmless fratboy pranks.
Not "occupation". Liberation
Not "voted for the IWR". Misled. Just politics. Wisdom. Strong on defense.

Please, please, don't say such things. People might get the idea that Kerry and Edwards, when it came to the crunch, sold out!

After all, they are "our" warmongers (erhh....statesmen) and have a (D) after their names and are courageous (when it's safe to be), and above reproach (even when they do sell out).

I mean, come on! Get real! What's a few thousand dead and maimed when "our" intrepid leaders need to get the "center"?

Get over it! What are you, some kind of bleeding heart liberal?

[CWebster]

66. Have you noticed the latest ploy adopted by the likes of Blair

Accountability. They verbalize they accept "accountability" as if that was the extent of it. They will accept "accountability", but they won't apologise, they won't admit amistake. As if there were no consequences. It is like the man who stands in front of the judge, "Okay, your honor, I am guilty, bye,"

[DjTj]

87. In all 4 scenarios Iraqis would have died...

...if IWR didn't pass in that form, it would have passed in another form.

I don't believe for a moment that anything procedural would have kept Bush out of Iraq. He was going to find a way in no matter what the Democrats were saying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. No one is arguing with that.

We know that Boobya would have invaded Iraq no matter what. Our complaint is that some Democratic Senators (two in particular) endorsed and continue to support it. Neither Kerry or Edwards have renounced their votes in support of Bush. Kerry still supports the occupation.

[moondust]

60. Very good!

:yourock:

Reminder: IWR was NOT a declaration of war. And it was a given that it was going to pass anyway.

[msmcghee]

62. It was a win / win for the pukes . .

There was nothing that Kerry could have done to avoid the trap. Karl Rove played his cards perfectly.

9/11 gave the pukes a full house. Going against those cards would have been political suicide.

Do you want Dems who have the legislative record and the ability to kick the pukes out of office in November to commit political suicide?

Kerry did the best he could. Now, predictably, ideological Dems, like many here, expected him to go down in flames defending our principles - rather than living to fight another day.

You don't vote against a 78% approval rating and survive.

[CWebster]

63. There were many, including Kennedy who voted against it

and stood tall in the face of the attacks of the Right. They should be commended as true patriots, who risked their careers, like soldiers risk their lives, in the eternal vigilance required to preserve liberty.

And you dismiss them and their willingness to sacrifice it all in excusing a political coward like Kerry. Those who saw it for what it was and held their ground, that Bush had not made the case for war, and weathered the abuse, now are additionally jeered at as ideologically pure. Just to add insult to injury.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. 23 to be exact. Some facing reelection.

Including my senator Patty Murray. Just silly of them, I suppose. Displaying integrity in the face of "political reality".

[msmcghee]

76. Kennedy was not planning . .

. . to run for president.

If Kerry voted no, and the WMD's showed up. He would be toast.

Everyone, including most here at DU, never questioned the possibility of some WMD's showing up. If you go back and look at the posts from those days, the position here was that we wanted the UN inspectors to go back in and finish the job.

That's what Bush* implied in his speech - that war was a last resort and that he'd work with the UN to resolve the issue peacefully - but he needed the threat of force to provide a credible incentive for Hussein to comply.

Edwards a few minutes ago said that if Kerry was president then and had asked for the same things Bush* did - he would have voted to give it to him.

The point was not that Kerry voted for the IWR - it's that Bush* lied about his intentions. The more we go on about Kerry's for vote the better Bush* looks to the rest of the world.

[CWebster]

79. He wanted to be president

so he aided and abetted in one of the most shameful abdications of our congress in our history. True presidential timbre, eh? Meanwhile Michael Moore takes the crap and Kerry should bow down and kiss his feet for getting the word out there that shifts the political landscape. Someone needs to remind Kerry that Moore is a progressive activist of the stripe his DLC advisors despise.

I was here at DU then, I know what the overriding consensus was and it was NOT as you portray it, Kerry was roundly condemned. blm, Molly and a couple of his campaign workers--NYPete were his only die-hard supporters. Even the owners of this site opposed the Invasion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Kerry can stop the denunciations by the left and make Iraq an issue.

All he has to do is renounce his vote for the war, and stop supporting the occupation.

However, that would require some courage and ethics. So, I expect that he'll continue to play it safe and allow more people to die to feed his political ambitions.

[democratreformed]

99. Congressman Vic Snyder was one.

Yes, he is facing re-election. Repub opponent is Marvin Parks. The lady who was principal at the school I used to teach at told me the other day that she is working for Parks - she is angry with Vic over something to do with the Corps of Engineers allowing the farmers' fields to be flooded. I could hardly believe it. She is such a sweet lady. How can she work for a Repug????

Besides, I love Vic Snyder.

[EndElectoral]

67. Here's EXACTLY why in his words!! and why he voted against funding later!

WHY KERRY WENT VOTED FOR FIRST IRAQ RESOLUTION

“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.”

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

And why he voted against the funding one:

The Distortions of the Bush TV Ad Campaign

You’ve all seen the TV ad where Kerry says, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

The Bush people would have you believe that Kerry was flip-flopping. Quite the opposite. What Kerry is referring to is an amendment HE introduced into the Senate that would have rescinded some tax cuts to the wealthy to help pay for the cost of war. In other words, the wealthy would have been asked to sacrifice. Kerry, unlike Moore, wasn’t asking the Senators to risk sacrificing their sons and daughters ,but simply asking them to sacrifice some of the tax cut of the wealthiest people to help pay for the war effort –God forbid!

BUT PRESIDENT BUSH said he would veto the bill IF the Kerry amendment was included. Instead he chose to protect his wealthy constituents while asking poorer and middle class America familes to put their sons and daughters lives on the line, and asking their granchildren to get ready to write out one more check to cover the massive deficit his policies have contributed to. Kerry’s amendment was defeated. When Kerry said he voted for the bill, he is correct. He voted for the exact same bill that was passed (including the Kerry amendment), except he was being fiscally responsible in limiting the deficit. When his amendment was denied, he knew there were enough votes for passage anyway, and voted to make a statement that this kind of blind nationalism without at least fiscal sacrifice by our wealthiest belied fiscal and ethical responsibility.

The question is not WHY did Kerry vote against the second Iraqi appropriation, BUT WHY would President Bush not sign the bill with the Kerry amendment? Does President Bush not believe in supporting our troops? Of course President Bush does. To say otherwise is dishonest. But it is just as dishonest of the Bush campaign trying to paint President Kerry as not supporting our troops. It is not only unworthy of the President’s campaign, it is just plain deceitful and dishonest.

Or as Cheney would say <Cheney Expletive>

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The "Duh, I was duped" defense.

Still waiting for him to speak out against the invasion and occupation that he and Edwards sanctioned and continue to support.

[CWebster]

72. Why did we ever even attack Iraq?

Does anyone know? Suddenly, we had to attack Iraq. What was the compelling reason we had to suddenly do so? What happened that suddenly Iraq was such a threat to the world? Why was this not ever questioned by so many in congress? All of these explanations, including Kerry's lomg-winded proclamations, are just playing along with the charade that out of thin air, without any credible threat or concern from neighboring countries(with the exception of Israel who opposes them all)we had to attack. Why the hell did anyone play along with this fabrication?

[moondust]

82. It started out as a diversion.

IIRC the drumbeat suddenly arose when Agent Rowley was testifying about the FBI's failures. As usual Bushco wanted to push it off the front page. Unfortunately, in no time they had made so many claims about the dangers of Saddam that they were beyond the point of no return. There was no way out so they went ahead.

Just my take on it.

[EndElectoral]

101. Bush decided to attack Iraq, not Kerry

Let's not forget that Bush made the decision to attack Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted to give the president the authority to enforce inspections for an arsenal of WMD's.

We now know that was pretty much a cooked report put together in a period of weeks to support a WH policy of pre-emption.

Kerry figured he's in a Catch 22. If indeed the CIA is right and they have WMD's, he's F***ed. If they don't have WMD's then he can portray he voted to give the Prez authoirty AFTER building a multi-lateral coalition AND going to the UN. The problem is he made the mistake of trusting Bush to act in good faith.

I think looking in retrospect, Kerry did what he did based on the Intelligence briefing. He was duped by Tenet.

Truth is men like Byrd and Leahy were more rightly skeptical. It is not Kerry's finest hour, and makes things difficult for him, but you have to remember Bush jumped the gun. The Iraqi resolution WAS NOT FOR IMMEDIATE WAR against Irq, but to make the inspections work. Blix was in Iraq. Bush felt he wasn't finding anything so he couldn't have been doing his job. In fact Blix WAS!

[The Stranger]

91. THE WAR POWERS ACT

Congress had to vote to authorize force under the War Powers Act to satisfy the Constitution's grant of the power to declare war solely to the Congress. He and other Democrats demanded that Bush not launch the war without giving the inspectors time to find out (what we know now) that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Republican lie machine has transformed this vote under the War Powers Act into a "flip flop." Please don't let them get away with this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. I'm still waiting for Kerry to flip-flop.

And, renounce his support of the invasion and his ongoing support of the occupation.

But, that would take courage on his part. Something notably in short supply in "our" hero.

[Disturbed]

100. Massive Military buildup

During the pressure on the Congress to sign off on this Invasion Resolution there was an obvious military buildup to invade. To me it seemed inevitable that the invasion would take place. A few Dems (23) had the courage to vote this blank check down. It was obvious to me that BushCo was going to invade Iraq, come Hell or high water. If 90% of Dems had voted this crap down BushCo would have went forward. Hans Blix's team was making progress and had they been allowed a few more months it would have been evident that the WMDs had been destroyed. The rumor that Saddam was willing to capitulate but BushCo waved that aside is believeable to me.

All the reasons for removing Saddam have been outlined here many times. 1) Hegomy 2) Oil and Euro 3) Military control of ME 4)Oil pipeline 5) Protection of Israel

Kerry/Edwards believe in those reasons and the control of Iraq. Make no mistake about that!