Question...

[Jessica]

When discussing the Iraq War with people, how do you counter the argument that Kerry voted for the war? I don't criticize him for this, but it's just hard to argue. Any help is appreciated ... and, before anyone says it - I'm not a Repug in hiding...

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

1. He voted for the authorization to go to war

Authorization does not mean you have to go to war. The war resolution was to furnish the pres with all possible options, including war. However, it was well understood that war was going to be the last option. The admin even said so itself, proclaiming to exhaust all avenues of international discourse etc. Of course, they did almost nothing with that.

[annabanana]

2. quote:

Kerry’s War Vote

"But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq..."

"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."

[treading_water]

3. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[babylonsister]

4. Kerry voted for the war when he thought Shrubbie

was doing the right thing and had proof WMD's were there. When he/we found out we were all deceived, that's when he 'flip-flopped', as I did. We got into a war, nay, Shrubbie STARTED a war for no reason, based on false info that he and his cohorts encouraged all of us to believe.

[Jessica]

7. Thanks all...

I'm kinda new at this - and a little rusty. :pals: You've been quite helpful...

[apnu]

12. This is actually a good example

Of how the Chimp "stays the course" Iraq is a mess and like the captain of the Titanic, the Chimp will blindly go along his "path" no matter what the peril, damage and toll may be.

If the Chimp has to send every single 18-24 year olds into an abattoir so he can "stay the course," then the chimp will do it. That's what makes him the worst pResident ever.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Kerry did not "flip-flop"

He voted for use of force as a THREAT to force Hussein to let the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, and use of force if Hussein didn't let them in, or if he did but then refused to co-operate with them.

But Hussein DID let them in and he DID co-operate with them.

Then BUSH KICKED THEM OUT.

Kerry has NEVER changed his position on the IWR.

[ewagner]

5. Talking about this earlier

with some friends.

We've forgotten that Dubya was throwing jello against the wall in an effort ot get something to stick when the resolution rolled around. Dubya gave LOTS of reasons as to why he needed the authorization to use force.

Among them were:

Saddam will not allow inspectors in unless he knows force will be used against him if he doesn't let them back in.

This is about DISARMING SADDAM. It is not about REGIME CHANGE. (Remember the term Regime change was NOT used at the UN because most of the Security Council was opposed to it.

The resolution will add TEETH to our diplomatic efforts.

We forget this crap too easily.

[tomfodw]

6. He voted to give Bush the option of using force

Thinking that Bush would use that as a tactic to force Saddam Hussein to fully comply with the UN resolutions about disarming.

The initial version of the $87 billion funding bill - the one Kerry voted for - contained some provisions such as how to pay for it (including canceling some of the president's tax cuts for upper-income households, extending some benefits to reservists, etc.

The final version of the $87 billion funding bill - the one Kerry voted against - had eliminated reversing the tax cuts and planned to pay for the war solely by more borrowing. It also did not contain the extension of benefits to reservists.

Kerry has explained that he thought the president should have the authority to use force so that his hands would not be tied in dealing with Saddam - as he, if and when president, would not want his hands tied. But he thought the president would wait to go to war until it was 100% proven that there was no alternative. He thinks Bush used the vote as a green light to start a war before it was required (which Kerry had not expected or intended when voting for the $87 billion), and obviously that we went in half-cocked with no plan for the aftermath.

The way Congress works, bills often are voted on several times in different forms before they finally pass. It is not uncommon for a senator or representative to vote for one version of a bill but against a final (and possibly much-changed) version. That's what happened here. Kerry has not done the best job of explaining it, unfortunately. Equally unfortunately, the press has not bothered trying to understand or explain it, either.

[TexasChick]

8. And, if they bring up the $87 billion bill thing, give them this link:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0805c.html

People always like to bring up with as well when they want to argue about Kerry not funding the troops in Iraq!

[LynnTheDem]

9. NO ONE voted for the war

They voted to give bush the authority for use of force as a threat to make Saddam Hussein allow the UN weapons inspectors back in.

They voted to give bush the authority for use of force IF Hussein refused to let the inspectors in or IF Hussein refused to co-operate with the UN.

They voted to give bush the authority for use of force AS A LAST RESORT.

It worked as a threat and Saddam did allow them in.

Then bush kicked the UN out of Iraq and invaded. BUSH VIOLATED HIS OWN RESOLUTION and NO ONE voted for that.

[fryguy]

10. misrepresentation of the vote

they senate didn't vote to go to war, in fact there has been (to my knowledge) no formal declaration of war - which can ONLY be made by the Congress. what kerry, and many other dems, voted for was to authorize the president to use the means necessary to enforce the UN inspections. kerry has also consistently explained that it was right and necessary to give the president, any presdient, the ability to conduct foreign relations, including threatening force if necessary, but instead of working on a way to resolve the situation, * rushed to war. so instead of containing and isolating a despotic ruler, we overthrew him at the cost of over 1000 US lives, over $200 billion and counting, not to mention the loss of US trust throughout the world and untold deaths of Iraqi civilians.....

.....so in short, don't buy into the GOP's method of dumbing down Congressional action for their own uses.

[fryguy]

11. and welcome to DU ---> don't forget to to vote!

[Jessica]

15. Don't worry....

I've never been more motivated to vote in my life. I'm actually what I like to call a "recovering republican" - and voted for Bush in 2000 *cringes in deep unworthiness*. However, his actions - primarily his lies and failed justification for the war - caused me to flippity-flop right to the other side. Fool me once, Mr. President ... x(

[fryguy]

17. can't resist....

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[dennis4868]

13. it is hard to explain.....

how Kerry trusted Bush to act like a Prez....NEVER AGAIN!

LET FREEDOM REIGN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004!!!

[MsTryska]

16. I typically counter with this:

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



from his speech on the Senate floor just prior to voting "for the war" (the speech is a good one - you should read it through) here's the best part:

"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. "

[clydefrand]

18. This is what I heard last year that was the reason for his voting

against the $87B package. (I also heard Neal Boortz talking about it on his radio show. He was the one who thought we shouldn't be giving Iraq money without their having to repay it. And he also said that we shouldn't be paying for new garbage trucks, that we should gather all the ones in Chicago and send those to them because they didn't have any good ones anyway. We would then use that money to buy new ones for this country. He also said that we shouldn't be building new houses for the Iraqis, but to build them here in AL and send all of those in Iraq those trailers in AL.) All the above has nothing to do with the question except to say that Boortz supported the idea of no give aways then, but now supports Bush.



The paragraph below is the one I've heard for his not voting for the bill the second time around as well as not providing for our troops' needs.

"Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money."