Kerry nows says his IWR vote was "right for the country."

[Guaranteed]

That's what he said when Jennings was grilling him last night.

I have trouble agreeing with his thinking that giving President Bush carte blanche on invading another country unprovoked was a good idea, in particular when it seemed so clear that Bush was hell-bent on doing just that. We were in the middle of the war on terror, and...well, you all know the story on that.

Anyone else have any opinions on the matter?

Edited to put the word "vote" after "IWR" in the title.

[robsul82]

1. Well, that's today.

Just wait until TOMORROW!

Later.

RJS

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. He's said this all along

When in doubt, err on the side of a strong defense- and the whole thing did not have to end in war.

[Guaranteed]

3. Strong defense? I thought we invaded another country.

Unprovoked.

[aquart]

8. See, that's my problem.

Either he doesn't get it. Or he won't admit he gets it.

He thinks it was right to GIVE Bush a carte blanche, just wrong of Bush to use it like a carte blanche.

Uh, no. Sorry. The Founding Fathers were pretty firm about not giving anybody that much power.

See, according to Kerry, if GOOD people had all that power, they would use it wisely and justly. He's the same about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

Skull and Bones kind of attitude, I'm thinking.

[Guaranteed]

20. Right, he's just a good person who GAVE that power

to a bad person.

But, like Kerry said- "Do you really think that if I was President we'd be in Iraq now?"

So he DID know it was a stupid idea. Yet, he still authorized it.

[aquart]

30. Which reads as gutless in a crunch.

He goes with the flow.

[Guaranteed]

37. Blows with the winds like reeds in a hurricane. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

34. he deserves to be president

he's John Kerry. His initials are JFK and he is from a rich family in MA. He has a history of voting for liberal legislation from a safe liberal state. What more could you want, ethics?

[wtmusic]

35. lol Cheswick

In a rare moment of sarcasm. Morning to ya! :-)

[JVS]

67. One bone to pick

In the last 4 years he's voted for some real right wing garbage things.

[wtmusic]

78. Just asking

do you have links?

[JVS]

170. Sure

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/02/3fcc1c6b9cb1c
In this link we can see that Kerry voted for the USAPATRIOT act. Kerry is currently criticizing the act. I wonder why he supported it in the first place. I do not appreciate Democratic politicians sacrificing my civil rights on the alter of Bush's paranoia for the sake of appearing strong on national security.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1027-06.htm

In this link we can see that Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Many here will claim that this issue is old and done with. I could not disagree more, this issue will not be over until dead soldiers stop comming back.

I'll be back later, I have some work to do.

[Monte Carlo]

36. Bush already had the power.

He is Commander-in-Chief, after all. The Vietnam war has partially seperated the power of war away from Congress. What the debate and vote in Congress did do is force him to make some compromises, which he didn't honor anyway.

[Guaranteed]

43. Even if it was just symbolic legislation, Kerry should have

voted against it. In fact, ESPECIALLY if it was just symbolic. Bush gave him the chance to stand up against the war, and he passed.

[isbister]

55. Re: Even if...

I was as anti-war as anyone I knew, I was never, ever a big believer of Saddam's threat to the US, and I was still not 100% sure Saddam didn't have something. No body was marching intelligence people showing me pictures and telling me that they knew specifically where the stuff was either.

When were you absolutely 100% sure Saddam didn't have an ounce of... anything?

Inspectors needed to be in Iraq. If they found something, great... if they didn't then maybe sanctions could've been lifted and the Iraqi people not suffer so much.

[Guaranteed]

59. I wasn't sure...I thought he probably had something.

But I DID know that he hadn't attacked us for the 12, 13, 20 years that he supposedly had these WMD, and that he was poor as hell because of the sanctions against him.

In any case, I knew that Saddam wasn't a threat, and that Bush had ulterior motives. Kerry knew too. He was just scared of being called "unpatriotic," so he rolled over.

[isbister]

89. Read Kerry's speech at the time of the vote

If you want to understand the position he took at the time. If you're really interested, its worth it... It's not the position you've been led to believe.

[Guaranteed]

109. He voted to give Bush the power to start a war.

"Nuancing" his positions isn't going to change that. He knew, we all knew that Bush is a major-league asshole and was hell-bent on starting a war. And Kerry let him do it. Period.

[isbister]

115. Bush already has the power to protect the national security

Remember, bush and the gang didn't want to go to the UN. It was Congress and the polls (the polls said that America wanted to go through the UN to deal with Saddam, it wasn't until sometime around Powell's lies at the UN in Feb 2003 that the opinion turned in bush's favor) that led bush to seek the resolution and go to Congress.

Did bush have a plan all along....well yeah, that's the problem! He was having people cook the intelligence to show to Congress and the American people. It is apparent now that bush was planning to undermine the UN and attack anyway.

The Senator felt he had the responsibility to slow the bush march to war and get him to the UN and get inspectors to check out what Saddam was doing.. In hindsight we know a lot more about what bush and Saddam were doing than we did at the time.

[newsjunkie]

178. Thats how I look at it too

When they try to defend him for this,they end up doing Bush's work for him. ..arguing the same excuses he uses for going to Iraq. It wont hold up. I find Kerry offensive,and arrogant almost as much as the Bushs. It bothers me a LOT because he was in that Skull and Bones outfit (same as the Bushs). I am also aware of how his little 'surge' happened and why. The whole point of that secret society from what I understand is 'valuable connections' when you need them and you know secrets about them so they have to help you,right? Sounds pretty sick to me.
He and and wife both look like they have the impression they are 'special' somehow....well,let's just say they wont drown quickly in a flood, their noses are stuck up in the air so high. Not my kinda Democrats. They think because they are rich and friends with the Kenendys and Clintons that we should make them our leader.
IMO after hearing Howard Dean speak all these months the others are as boring as watching paint dry. He has started something very cool....something that can put the trash out of the WH.

[TreasonousBastard]

120. Excellent speech...

while not perfect or ageeable to everyone, it is not the blank check that far too many have been led to believe it is.

If I were a Senator back then, I can't honestly say how I would have voted with the secret information presented and the backroom politicking, and I have to respect Kerry's position.

[isbister]

124. Not exactly the bush bottom kissing

pro-war nut that the media and others paint him out to be... looks like he actually put some thought into the situation, huh?

[dreissig]

121. Doubletalk

Talking one way and voting another is a standard trick. Hillary did it too.

But the choice on the IWR was either Yes or No. Kerry's speech wasn't as important as his vote, in fact his speech wasn't really important at all. Kerry's supporters are using it now to show his ambivalence, as if it mattered.

No way I'll vote for warmonger Kerry.

[isbister]

128. Its America

you don't have to vote for Kerry. But to say its double talk is silly. He had the same position before during and after the vote. To boil it down, he had a choice between liars and picked sending the American liar to the Un to check up on the Iraqi one.

[wtmusic]

135. Oh really

just where in IWR does it say Bush has to go to the UN to stop Hussein?

[isbister]

153. You haven't read that either!

You should:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

[wtmusic]

156. Nice try

Answer a question with a link.

I have read that resolution maybe 100 times. My eyes must be going bad. Please point out to me where it says the President must obtain specific authorization from the UN to invade Iraq. The only pertinent part I see is:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Thanks so much.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

167. Bush did not follow the resolution.

The resolution requires that Bush show that he has determined:

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686


And that determination was a lie. Iraq actually was complying and allowing inspections when Bush launched the war. So Bush is in clear violation of the resolution.

[wtmusic]

171. Easy out

1(A) Bush says reliance will not adequately protect the national security of the United States.

Done deal.

Meanwhile, Kerry votes against Byrd amendment *requiring* Bush to get a UN vote to go to war.

[Guaranteed]

180. But he told us he wouldn't.

He SAID, over and over, that he would go it alone if he had to, showing that he didn't care about international legality.

[dreissig]

141. High Negatives

We'd be foolish to go into the general election with a guy that the antiwar Left opposes. Nobody has really measured the intensity of resentment against Kerry for the IWR vote, but I suspect it's substantial. I'll certainly never vote for him, or for any other senator who voted for the war.

As far as I'm concerned it's 1968 all over again. Yes, there are differences between now and 1968, but the substantial similarity is that the Democrats chose to ignore the antiwar Left, and lost them.

[isbister]

155. The primaries will be a good test then

He passed the Iowa test by winning the anti-war vote, we''l see how the other 49 tests come out. If folks read the resolution and what kerry said at the time of his vote, some will and understand where he stood.

He certainly did and does not have the war-nut position that many in the media and elsewhere would have you believe. We''l see if that's enough.

[dreissig]

175. Kerry Won Iowa

Kerry won Iowa, no doubt about it. We're still debating the significance of that victory. However, it hasn't changed my decision not to vote for him. When I leave the voting booth in November, I want to have a clear conscience. I can't reward guys like Kerry by voting for them.

Here's a question for the rest of the party: How many hardcore anti-war Democrats are there? Can you afford to write us off? That's what Humphrey thought in 1968.

[wtmusic]

61. Maybe Saddam had *something*

but was it in any way, shape, or form a true threat to the US? A reason to kill 35,000 people?

[Guaranteed]

68. AND, even with all of the speculation, we still STARTED A WAR.

You don't avoid war by starting one. That's how ALL wars start.

It's a matter of ethics. You don't hit first unless you're DAMNED sure that the guy/country is going to try to hurt you.

[wtmusic]

76. exactly

Some people just don't get it. Extremely frustrating, and frightening.

[isbister]

95. Of course

I agree.

[isbister]

92. You're mixing things that happened

six months or so apart. The resolution was in October 2002 and the war began in March of 2003. A loooooooooooot happened between, remember?

[wtmusic]

97. No, I don't remember

What, if anything, changed? There was a resolution from the UNSC that was complied with by Iraq?

Please, fill me in.

[isbister]

107. After the IWR

bush and the gang went to the Un and got 1441 passed in mid-November. Then Iraq had to get the list which they did in early Dec 2002.

Then in late Dec the State Dept came out with the Africa/Iraq/Uranium thing trying to pass it off as proof. The BBC went to Niger and South Africe and asked them if they were dealing with Iraq and they said they were not. The thing died down (with all of the other stuff going on, it got overshadowed) Then bush mentioned it in the State of the Union (with other lies).

Inspections, bush and the gang lies, Feb 2003 Powell goes to the Un and lies. (What we found out later from Blix was that the US and UK were working behind the scenes to "bribe" and discredit the Inspectors)

The Un says the stuff the US and UK was pretty much crap. Also said the Niger Docs were forged... Early March 2003. bush's timetable is up and he lies to the American people and the Congress (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html) and the war begins... the administration and the corporate media keep up the lies until this day.

[wtmusic]

122. So nothing of substance changed

Still no confirmed WMDs, Iraq is complying with UNSC 1441, UN is asking for 90 days to continue inspections.

Confirms my contention that going to war was wrong. A fact that Kerry refuses to admit.

[isbister]

131. Hello

Going to war in March 2003 was wrong, yup.

When did Kerry refuse to admit it? Every time he talks about the war he says bush was wrong. From before the IWR until now.

[wtmusic]

133. He won't admit the war is wrong

Everyone says Bush is wrong. That's an easy one. He won't say the war is wrong, that it was a mistake to go to war.

[isbister]

139. You're welcome to your opinion

He's said bush's invasion was wrong just about every time he's spoken about it.

[wtmusic]

143. LOL 'Bush's invasion'?

Fine, pass the buck. It was an American invasion and Kerry had the chance to *require* Bush to go to the UN for a war vote. He didn't.

There is absolutely no risk to the US in that position, but Kerry was pressured into signing a resolution that gave Bush the power to do it unilaterally. Bush would have done it anyway? It would have been impossible if we had passed the Byrd amendment. Kerry voted against it.

[Guaranteed]

If Kerry calls it "Bush's invasion" in the GE Bush'll just say "You voted

for it."

<crickets chirping>

[Snivi Yllom]

150. he will never say he was wrong

"he was misled" you know....

[HFishbine]

105. And that's exactly where Kerry could get some sympathy

In the period between his pro IWR vote and the launch of the assault, Kerry did warn Bush that he wasn't proceeding properly -- even aksed "what's the rush."

But then he turns around and says that his vote was right for the country. Just some extreme inconsistencies that seem to be guided by who he's talking to.

[Sideways]

159. When were you absolutely 100% sure Saddam didn't .......

have an ounce of anything?

I'll tell you when isbister the second I heard the little Hitler say he did.

I live in the ME and I get a much different perspective than US bound people do but there is ONE universal truth here and that is that Bush fucking lies.

And he was lying about the THREAT just like he lies about everything. EVERY FUCKING THING.

I never had any doubts not one. Liars lie. End of story.

[Guaranteed]

188. Defending the war. nt

[Monte Carlo]

74. It was more than about Bush, it was also about Saddam.

It was also symbolically standing behind the President - regretably being Bush - against Saddam who, despite the flagrant abuses of the Administration - was a really, really bad guy.

[Snivi Yllom]

148. Kerry's defense of his vote....

is symbolic as well, no substance.

[bigtree]

183. Bush had the authority

without the resolution.

The resolution was an attempt to reign him in. It almost worked. Inspectors were allowed back into Iraq, influenced I think by the threat of force implied in the legislation. Saddam actually began destroying missiles to forstall an attack. Bush did head back to the U.N. as the resolution required, but he balked when it looked like they would reject his plans to invade.

The authority to commit our forces did not originate in the resolution. The president already had such authority as it had been exercised by past presidents without congressional authorization. Bush had a plan to invade and occupy well before 9-11. He tried to get the cover of Congress, but he far exceeded the mandate of the congressional resolution in his unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. Nothing in the resolution that Sen. Kerry and others voted for mandated immediate war. Bush betrayed the will of Congress in his rush to war.

Bush doesn't get it.

[kerryistheanswer]

4. He didn't say that

You are twisting his words around. He said it was right to hold Saddam accountable - not to go to war. He did not vote for war.

While I still disagree with his vote, I won't hold it against him because I know if he were president, we wouldn't be in this war. Remember, he's seen war first hand and fought hard to end the tragedy in Vietnam.

We need to put the IWR behind us and figure out a way to find peace in the Middle East and throughout the world. We need to make sure we never pre-emptively strike another nation.

Let's get Dubya out!!!

Peace.

[Guaranteed]

6. NO. He said that his VOTE was the right thing for the country. nt

[wtmusic]

64. The best way to put IWR behind us is to admit it's wrong

and Kerry won't do that. Until he does this will be a thorn in his campaign.

[waldenx]

5. "right for the country"

code for Israel.

[aquart]

12. Now THAT I object to. Big time.

[dreissig]

149. Make Sure You Snitch

Don't just get offended, press the alert button. He'll get a warning, and then he'll get booted. You'll have your revenge!

[funky_bug]

7. I'm cool with Kerry's votes on IWR and Patriot. Here's why.

I watched Kerry last night after the SOTA, and I was quite satisfied with his answers of IWR and Patriot, as they paralleled my own experiences, post 9/11.

First and foremost, we have to remember these two things:

1. We were all scared shirtless
2. Then we were lied to

Had Bush the Lesser not taken action after 9/11 in some form, he would have been slaughtered for it. We were all scared, and we were all expecting our resident to do something, and do it quickly.

Enter the Patriot and IWR. Kerry explained last night that the IWR HE voted for gave the resident power to go to war AFTER all other efforts were exhausted, and after undeniable proof was presented, and after we had formed our alliances. Bush the Lesser did not follow through, instead leaning on his own self-righteous, God-based belief, that he had the power. (Thank you, Gov. Dean for reminding us that it's OUR power, and WE have it, in spite of Bush.) The Patriot, while containing some things which are necessary to defend us from terrorist cells on our own soil, was also twisted and convoluted to the point where now Ashcroft and the lot have "the power" to intrude on us an any time. By playing on all our fears, Bush the Lesser rushed Patriot through. By lying to us, he rushed us into war.

What Kerry voted for is NOT what Bush has abused. It's sort of like when I give my daughter lunch money for school. I expect that she's going to actually spend it on lunch. I'm disappointed when she spends it on junk food at the nearby mini-mart. Then I learn my lesson. I cannot give her free reign... I have to tighten those reigns, and instead give her a check made out to the school.

What Kerry recognizes, is that Bush has proven he is capable of lying, and abusing his authority. What Kerry is doing now, is cutting Bush a check... a reality check. The American people will no longer accept his promises as truth, will no longer allow him free reign, will no longer allow him to abuse our trust and our civil rights.

Kerry put that baby to bed last night. Let's move on, shall we?

[Guaranteed]

13. Kerry's smarter than that.

So are you. Everyone with half a brain knew that Bush wanted a war, and that, given authorization, he was going to start one, whether we had global support or not. Bush even SAID that, over and over. He said that we'd go it alone, if we had to.

[CWebster]

15. let's move on?

Where have I heard that before?

Something said, when that uncomfortable truth just won't go away. Kerry knew exactly what he was voting for.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. No thanks, I choose not to move on

Tens of thousands of people died.

[HFishbine]

40. Ahhhh

"Quite crying in your teacups."

- John Kerry

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/129019_joel02.html

[aquart]

23. Do you want a president who cannot see through a lie?

Millions of people around the world were shouting the house down about this war. Kerry didn't listen to us.

COMMON SENSE said a dictator who wasn't scaring his next door neighbors probably wasn't a threat to the United States.

FACTS said our attackers were Saudi and Egyptian, not Iraqi.

Anyone who could read even a Murdoch newspaper knew that.

But he voted to allow Bush to provoke a war. Sorry. He was a bloody idiot on that vote and his telling me he was in the company of other idiots doesn't make me feel confident in his leadership.

[isbister]

116. October 2002

How large were the protest marches?

[wtmusic]

I'm not at all 'cool' with Kerry's vote

The US has arguably started the first war in its history.

'We were all scared shitless'. Fuck that. Because of 9/11? Because of reports of WMD's that weren't found yet? I'll tell you who was 'scared shitless'--it was the Iraqis who had to live with cruise missiles and cluster bombs raining from the sky.

Kerry and his legislative cohorts were given the responsibility (by the Constitution) of providing a check to the president's power, and they choked.

The war was not based on justice but fear. When you start killing people on that basis you're going to have problems.

[funky_bug]

44. Going on record as saying...

Yes, my security blanket took a direct shot after 9/11.

No, I was not fooled by the Bush rhetoric, but then again, I'm your average cynical dem citizen, so I make it a point of believing exactly .098% of everything that comes out of a puke's mouth.

But I was NOT in congress or the senate, and I did not make a career out of making political decisions.

Given the aftermath of the decision, was Kerry right to vote for IWR and Patriot? Hell no. But am I satisfied with his response to that decision? Hell yes. Do I want someone in office who "can't recognize a lie" when he sees it? Of course not. Do I expect Jesus himself to announce his candidacy? Not by a long shot.

When people make mistakes, their character comes through in one of two ways:

1.) They admit the err of their ways and vow to do something about it.

2.) They cover it up with excuses and disavow any attempt to acknowlege participation in said act.

Kerry, IMHO did a bit of both. While he fully followed (1), he also covered a bit of ground on (2).

You have given me some food for thought, though.

[HFishbine]

49. "They admit the err of their ways and vow to do something about it."

And Kerry did this when? I'd like to see a quote where he says that he erred because today he's saying it was the right thing to do. Maybe you just stuck #1 in there for fun.

[funky_bug]

72. Word for word? No.

It was my impression that he was explaining his vote, and in explaining what went wrong, went on to say he would make amends.

Now, that's just one girl's opinion - and while I certainly welcome opposing opinions for consideration, I will form my conclusions on this subject based on the facts, not the rhetoric.
Posts meant to aggressively put me on defense, are also ineligible for logical consideration.

Did I mention Kerry is my #3? There is no rabid loyalty going on here. I just posted my thoughts. You can take offense to them if you like, but I'd rather you maintain an air of civility so that I can clearly see your point of view, thereby absorbing your take on the issue at hand.

[Guaranteed]

50. Kerry hasn't admitted his error.

He says it was the right thing for the country.

However, you're right that he is engaging in your second option, there. He was "lied to" (yeah, we all were. But I managed to see through the garbage, somehow). He didn't know Bush wouldn't "abide by the rules." etc.

Kerry's trying to turn this leadership failure on his part into some kind of "wise," nuanced foreign policy or something. Personally, I think that's a crock.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. It is and was an unjust war

and we should all be ashamed for letting it happen in our name.

PS... I was never affraid. I am however, mortified at what we have done and I will not vote for Edwards or Kerry. I'd sooner vote for Joe Lieberman. At least he is honest.

[wtmusic]

52. You can't deny that about Lieberman

I have never heard Lieberman described as a waffler.

[paulk]

60. you will not vote for Edwards or Kerry?

It's quite possible that either Edwards or Kerry will be the Democratic nominee. Denying your vote could lead to another four years of Bush in office. Ask yourself if this war would have happened with Kerry or Edwards in the White House. Ask yourself what future wars GW Bush will start.

In another post on this thread, you express concern over the thousands killed. Ask yourself how many more thousands Bush will
kill.

[HFishbine]

82. If

people are concerned that there are voters who will not vote for a candidate who favored the IWR, then perhaps it is incumbent upon us support a candidate who the anti-war folks will vote for.

Rather than trying to arm twist people to compromising deeply held principles, it might be wise to support a candidate who can be supported by anti-war voters.

[HFishbine]

32. Bogus

"1. We were all scared shirtless"

Yeah, a lot of people were scared. That is precisely the time when we want leadership who can rise above fear and keep an eye on what's important. The "everybody was scared" excuse is a testement to weak leadership. Were the congress people who voted against the war and against the Patriot Act more brave or just too stupid to be scared?

"2. Then we were lied to"

Sure, we were all lied to. This is another test of leadership -- discerning lies from the truth. Not only were citizens aware of the lies (inlcuding Scott Ritter and author and DU celeb Will Pitt who wrote a book about the WMD lies -- see my sig line), but other congress people saw through the lies as well. Even John Edwards says he wasn't mislead, but voted for the war for his own reasons. The "we were lied to" defense is simply another condemnation of an individuals leadership capabilities.

[funky_bug]

79. Thank you for writing me off as bogus

It's amazing... each camp cries that we are slamming each other to pieces... cries for unity on GD... and when a supporter of another candidate tries to be open minded enough to offer opinions in FAVOR of another candidate, they get trashed to pieces by the opposition.

You don't have to like my point of view, and hell, given some of the logical, rational responses on this topic, I may be looking at this all through rose colored glasses... but calling another's post "bogus" tells me that the only unity that is being sought on this board is the unity that comes when everyone simply agrees with you and stands behind YOUR candidate.

[HFishbine]

84. Bogus is

as bogus does.

Of course one could try discussing the issues instead of perceived tone.

[funky_bug]

90. And your tone is...

"bogus is as bogus does"... what tone does that imply toward me, and what issue does that address? And how does insulting me, help me to see your point of view on said issue?

That being said, you have helped me to appreciate all the wonderful posters on GD who are able to disagree with respect and integrity. I'm sorry that I cannot consider you one of them, for somewhere down the line I'm sure you've had some very good things to say, and will have them again. I just doubt that I will take the time to read them.

So as not to air dirty laundry and fill this thread with bickering, feel free to message me in private. I will not continue this non-issue related conversation on a thread where some people may actually be looking for answers and insight to a real issue.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Dhalgren]

93. The primary reason everyone was "scared shitless" was

the way in which the Bush admin. and its lapdog media whipped up the fear. Bush fell down on the job, that's why 9/11 happened. There is always the threat of a surprize attack from someone - always - the fear was whipped up to cover for the criminal negligence (or worse) of the Bush admin. Wjat we needed from our "leaders" at that time was calm and reasoned responses, instead we got who could out bully the next guy, who had more "balls" to seek revenge for the "terra". The IWR Democrats are going to have to come to grips with their duplicity at some point. Until they do, we can't fully trust them.

[sandnsea]

172. Exactly right

The only people who don't know this are the ones who don't want to.

[Monte Carlo]

9. I believe there were other concerns that Bush's rush to war in that vote..

... such as the nature of Saddam's threat to the world, which has existed for years. It is really hard to put anything past Saddam, and at the time, no one really knew for sure if he had weapons or not.

Giving the President authorization for war is a tricky dealing. On one hand, if we had waited for the U.N. to make a decision during the Kosovo war, Milosevic's genocide would have continued and thousands upon thousands would have died. On the other hand, you have Bush and his little Iraqi adventure. No one really knows at the time how things will work out. I personally didn't think Bush would actually invade Iraq against all opposition.

[aquart]

28. "Threat to the world"?

Again, Saddam's neighbors weren't scared.

[Monte Carlo]

83. In the short term, no. In the long term, yes.

It is very hard to put anything past Saddam. He was no pussycat. With sons like Uday and Qusai around, that's the beginning of a dynasty, a la N. Korea. We knew that Saddam was willing to use weapons, and with the type of underworld connections Saddam had, the opportunity to posses them would come to him sooner or later.

[Guaranteed]

179. Defending the war again. nt

[wtmusic]

47. We violated terms of the UN Charter, which we signed

and therefore is the law of the land. Article 51 specifically forbids 'pre-emptive' self-defense. There is no argument around this.

[isbister]

65. Re: We violated terms of the UN Charter

and, as a result, the US Constitution. I agree George W. Bush did this. Very few Demorats agreed with his "on a timetable" invasion.

[wtmusic]

69. Then why won't Kerry admit it was a mistake

and that Bush should be prosecuted as a war criminal?

[isbister]

86. At the time

it was not a mistake. I believe he has admitted that it was a mistake to believe/trust bush but hind sight is twenty-twenty.

We couldn't even get bush impeached... republican controlled Congress. I believe Kerry's goal is to remove him the old fashion way... by exposing bush for what he is and beating him in the election.

[wtmusic]

100. At the time it wasn't a mistake to violate the UN Charter?

Please explain.

[isbister]

110. The IWR

did not violate the Charter (and other things). The invasion did (in my opinion) some six months after the IWR. Technically the violation did not occur until the action had taken place.

[wtmusic]

123. Then why won't Kerry say the invasion was wrong?

[isbister]

134. Why do you think he hasn't?

Before during and after the IWR vote?

I think this all began with the IWR being wrong, though. Hindsight is 20/20

[wtmusic]

136. So you agree that IWR was a mistake

why can't Kerry?

[isbister]

152. If you mean was it a mistake

at the time, I don't admit it and I don't believe he has. He had to chose between liars and chose to send the American one to the UN to check up on the Iraqi one.

If you mean admitting that it was a mistake to trust bush, I believe he has a number of times.

Kerry's Oct 2002 speech warned bush that bush should do as he promised and that he would not support a war where the threat was not imminent nor one that wasn't done properly through the UN. Bush didn't do either. (did you read the speech? - nevermind, read it if you want to better understand Kerry's position, don't if you don't)

[IndianaGreen]

185. Kerry wants to turn America into a police state, as Bush does!

Kerry's proposals would make Ashcroft proud:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/intheirownwords/kerry/6.html

[HFishbine]

48. Think Back

"at the time, no one really knew for sure if he had weapons or not."

Indeed, there were in fact some people who were calling into question the validity of the "evidence." (See my sig line).

So, we are now a country that goes to war on speculation? No thanks.

[Monte Carlo]

88. I know that.

Bush and all of his "evidence" was a load of bullshit, just like Colin Powell said. But Saddam Hussein was still a very well connected man who we KNOW recieved military aid and weapons from Reagan and Bush. Only one solid piece of evidence is needed.

Are we a country that goes to war on speculation? Abso-friggin'-lutely. That's what military intelligence is all about, educated guesses, because we don't have a crystal ball.

[HFishbine]

96. Oh dear

And, so that solid piece of evidence was what exactly? Seeing there was no reconstituted nuclear program, no ties to Al Queda, no ties to 9/11 and no WMD, I think it's clear that there was indeed no "solid piece of evidence" at all.

But you plainly recongnize that when you defend going to war on speculation. You and I simply couldn't be further apart on this issue. War of a last resort is not based on educated guesses. Indeed, we are now seeing the detrimental consequences of such policy.

It amazes me that democrats are actually defending the PNAC position. My, how far we've sunk.

[Monte Carlo]

114. Oh spare me your drama.

Don't ask me what that solid piece was, and don't ask Kerry about it. Ask Bush, the man who made the decision.

You don't go to war on speculation alone. But you sure prepare for war on it. Do not mistake Bush's abuses for Kerry's concerns. And I think you and I would agree on a great deal about the war, despite all of this hubbub.

[HFishbine]

127. Fine

Tell me where you think we agree.

[wtmusic]

132. Kerry's concerns were wonderful

but his actions were weak. Didn't do his job. Period.

[Guaranteed]

144. PERIOD!! That is the END.

Thank you!

[Guaranteed]

147. See? Now you're defending the war.

HOW is Kerry going to beat Bush if he has to defend the war?

AND, just for the record, we should NOT be going to war on speculation, unprovoked.

[jpgray]

10. Both Dean and Kerry supported authorizations for war

Search for my thread on Biden/Lugar. Read the text of both the IWR and Biden/Lugar (available on the thread) and get back to me.

Both required the SAME exact things for an authorization. If we were running under Biden/Lugar, the authorization still would have gone through.

[wtmusic]

31. Yes, but only Kerry refuses to say the war is wrong

Don't want to lose those crossover votes :eyes:

[TLM]

158. Dean also repeatedly prefaced that by saying Bush never made the case

for going to war... which was something that BL put more emphasis on than the IWR.

[TLM]

157. Biden Lugar was not the IWR....

Biden Lugar has stricter requierments for targets and military goals it also limited action to disarming and pushed harder for UN support.

But as we can all remember Kerry attacked Dean for wanting to insist on getting UN support.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.


Kerry's stance on the war from day to day is based on only one thing... what's best for Kerry's career.

Kerry doesn't give one rat's ass about what best for the troops or the country... he cares only about his career.

[HFishbine]

11. Damnit Kerry. Pick a position and stick to it.

Just yesterday we were having a discussion about the ocassions when Kerry was criticising the administration after his war vote but prior to the war -- the "this isn't the right way to do it" explaination. I suggested such criticisms were what made Kerry a palatable second choice to this anti-war voter.

Now his vote was the right choice according to Kerry. So does that mean Kerry was wrong to critisize the president on the eve of war? Which is it senator?

[Walt Starr]

14. Prediction: Media Kerry meme will be waffler

That's the word they'll be sticking to Kerry with superglue.

Liar was the Gore meme.
Angry is the Dean meme.
Waffler will be the Kerry meme.

[Guaranteed]

21. BIG time.

That's the one.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. My opinion is that Kerry is playing politics

just like he did when he originally voted for the IWR. He can't possibly beat bush with a weasel act like that.
It's bad, it's good, it's bad ........now it's good again.

[Monte Carlo]

26. Kerry's position hasn't changed, only the expectations of him.

It seems that's the problem when your position on something is more than "I'm fer'it!" or "I'm ag'in it!"

First he was expected to vote 'no', like a good liberal. Then he was supposed to be happy about how the war turned out, like a good supporter. Then, he was supposed to be indifferent to Saddam's capture, like a good repentant 'yes' voter.

[TLM]

161. You know what... I respect Lieberman more than Kerry....

Support the war or don't, that's not the issue. The issue is the flip flopping.

Lieberman's a hawk and always has been... I do not agree with his position, but I can respect it.

Kucinich is a dove and always has been... I do not agree with him totally, but I can respect his position.

Dean very clearly laid out his reasoning and what he would support under what circumstances and he's stuck to that... I agree with him and I respect him for sticking to his guns.


Edwards has been a little unsure... frankly I think he was a little unsure why he voted for it in the first place. He's really new, only a first term congressman, so I can cut him a little slack on trying to find where he stands on this.


But Kerry and Clark... both of these guys are so full of crap that their ears stink. One day they are for it and it needs to be done because Saddam is going to destroy the world... then the next day it was all about leverage and they never expected Bush to actually go to war... then the next day the capture of Saddam proves they were right to support the war... then the next day the diabolical Bush tricked them into supporting the war... then he next day the war vote was the right thing for America.

These guys' story changes so much I think their speech writers much moonlight writing choose your own adventure novels. If the audience is hawks, then they play up the hawk side, and if the audience is doves, they play up the dove side.

Just how stupid do they think the American people are?

[KittyWampus]

17. Kerry Wasn't There When It Mattered

Where was Kerry?

Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, this week proposed separate bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President Bush to seek a fresh vote in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq; Kennedy's would require new votes in Congress before doing so.

But the chance of approval for either measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a lack of enthusiasm from Democratic congressional leaders.

The bills aren't supported by any of the four Democratic members of Congress running for president: Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

[wtmusic]

42. That about sums it up

Got a link for that cs?

[JI7]

18. he has always said that

he always said his vote was right.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. No he said he was lied to

and shouldn't have voted for it.

[TLM]

162. Didn't Kerry tell Will Pitt that he was tricked...

Oh... but that was Kerry's story for a liberal audience at truthout.

That story surely changed the second the audience changed.

[blm]

19. The country...as in the "process" of entrusting a president.

Clinton would tell you the same thing.

Besides, why are you railing on this when your own candidate also supported a resolution giving Bush final determination for use of force?

If it bothers you so much that you can't get over it, then I'd say you should be truue to your outrage and be an ardent supporter of Dennis Kucinich - the only real anti-Iraq-war candidate.

[Guaranteed]

25. Right. Dean isn't anti-war.

Anyhoo- did you trust Bush? Would YOU have voted to give Bush that carte blanche?

[aquart]

39. No. I would NOT have voted him that power.

That's why I was doing all that marching and phoning and emailing.

Yet BOTH my Democratic senators voted for the war. And still haven't apologized.

[TLM]

165. There are only two reasons that Kerry voted yes on the IWR...

1. He supported the war.

2. He was fooled by Bush.



Both stand as sufficent reason not to make this man president.

[TLM]

164. Once again, can't defend Kerry's support for the war.... so attack Dean!

No matter how many times you try to make this argument... supporting BL was not the same thing as voting for the IWR. Bl was more specific regarding targets and objectives, as well as having more pressure on getting UN support and congressional authorization.

Even Kerry said BL was better than the IWR, but then he supported the IWR. Face it, Kerry sold us out. He sold out all those troops and all their families. All for his own political gain.

And he doesn't even have the common human decency to say he was wrong.


Dean never wavered from his position that Bush had not made the case for war and that the war was wrong. Kerry said it was the right decision and he supported the president.

Hell Kerry said Saddam had nukes. Kerry also attacked Dean for wanting the UN behind actions in Iraq. Kerry's position changes every god damned day.

[isbister]

24. Which part of what the Congress required of the President was wrong?

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

[Guaranteed]

29. The part where he was able to invade Iraq with the

supposed authorization of Congress. Are you saying that he didn't have proper authorization?

[isbister]

51. I'm saying

He had the authority to do it whether Congress voted or not. He claimed he was protecting national security (The President can use the military without authorization from Congress if protecting national security):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

And, you're darn tootin' I'm saying bush (and the gang) lied.

Iraq was not a threat to our national security when bush invaded, inspections were working (for years, apparently), there was no link to 9/11, the one terrorist was retired, old and crippled, had been there for many years and it was generally thought to have been free and clear because of an Israeli/Palistinian deal.

[Guaranteed]

53. Of course.

So then you're saying that Kerry's vote was merely symbolic, and that Kerry supported the invasion.

[isbister]

58. IWR

was not the war. The war was some six months later...

Kerry supported a unified Congress standing behind the President to get the UN to act... to get inspectors in. He warned the President at the time of the vote about....pretty much what the President did. he Spoke again in January 2003 and repeated what he said in October.

Kerry did support military action if Saddam did not allow the inspections he agreed to.

[Guaranteed]

62. He warned Bush...

so...it sounds like Kerry was pretty suspicious about Bush's motives already.

[isbister]

71. Probably was...

bush became much more of a bald-faced liar after the resolution but he wasn't exactly honest... burnt the Dems big-time by grabbing the credit for No Child and then not funding it.

[Guaranteed]

33. It's awful hard to defend Kerry's actions without defending the war.

Do we really want a candidate that's going to have to defend Bush's "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq?

[blm]

38. If Bush had implemented IWR as written, he wouldn't have invaded.

Bush didn't do that. That is the card to play.

[Guaranteed]

46. Bush said he was going to invade with or without world support.

Over and over. Didn't Kerry hear him?

[aquart]

75. What? Bush invaded overnight? In a second?

Congress put its brains and eyes in a blind trust and saw nothing of the troop buildup on Iraq's borders?

They gave him the power to ignore them and then just ......did what?

[TLM]

166. Pathetic rationalization for COWARDICE!

Kucinich, Dean, Graham, and several others weren't fooled by Bush. They stood up in congress and in the media and said NO!

Of all the people who should have known that Bush would abuse any power given to him... Mr. John "BCCI/Iran Contra" Kerry should have known.

And lets be honest. Kerry knew what Bush was going to do. Kerry isn't stupid, he just cares more about his career than anything else.

Kerry chose to lay down for Bush for his own political gain. Bush did exactly what we all knew he was going to do, and Kerry could have stood up to him and said NO! But he didn't.

Kerry was not there for us when we needed him most, and for that I will not be there for him at the polls.

[Monte Carlo]

41. He won't. Saddam and Bush's lunacy are two seperate things.

Bush will try to make the two synonymous, but Democrats like Kerry won't let him. This whole mess is not all bad nor all good; it's somewhere in the middle.

[HFishbine]

56. Or more accurately

Do we want a candidate who is not in a position to critisize the president for launching a pre-emptive war?

The average Joe isn't going to buy the "I voted for the war but Bush did it the wrong way" line.

[SheilaT]

54. Well, so much for John Kerry

getting my vote. He's a completely inside the Beltway kind of guy who does not understand the anger out here in the rest of the country. The war was wrong. Voting for it was wrong. Voting for someone who voted for the war will be wrong.

And before all the Kerry supporters attack me, I live in Kansas and so I already know that my vote for a Democrat doesn't matter, so why bother to vote in the presidential column anyway? Our Republican senator up for re-election (Sam Brownback) will run unopposed. I will vote to retain the Democratic Congressman (Dennis Moore), but he also voted for the IWR and I won't work on his campaign as I did two years ago.

[Guaranteed]

57. The primaries matter, though.

We need to nominate someone who's a real leader. The Democratic Party is crumbling because of it's lack of backbone.

[deminflorida]

63. Well after that Kerry's not the guy....he's a Bush Ass kissing

congressman as is John Edwards and Joe Lieberman. They're the reason we're in the mess we're in now!

[Guaranteed]

70. Yup. It's time for some real leadership. nt

[TLM]

173. Well Clark is hardly clean when it comes to Bush ass kissing...

The stuff he said at that repuke fundraiser is way more ass kissy. But it didn't get 500 of our troops killed.


As much as I dislike Kerry, at least he has an established record as a democrat. The same can't be said for Clark.

I'd rather pound my balls flat with a sledge hammer than vote for either of those guys.

[faithfulcitizen]

177. What the hell happened to the 11th commandment?

First, all these candidates are GOOD democrats, including Clark. Ass kissing? A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think? Dean is the one who said he trusts the president to make the right decision, right before the resolution vote. And funny how Dean wants people to forget "what happened 4 years ago" and focus on the present. Yes, Dean was outspoken (make that VERY) outspoken as the war began, but Clark was too. He just wasn't sceaming it to audiences at rallies. He was giving reasoned and measured critisms all along. If fact, he was critizing Bush harshly in September 2002 in this Washington monthly article "An Army of One?" http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

He vote for Clinton in 1992, 1996, & Gore in 2000...just how long do you have to fight for democrats and critize Bush to be a "real" democrat?

Personally, I think Clark is the best one to challenge Bush and the Democratic Party has been handed a golden opportunity to do so, BUT I'll be dammed if I wouldn't vote for Dean or Kerry if they get the nod.

[isbister]

80. There was no vote for the Iraq war

The resolution was to grant the President permission to use force if specific conditions were met. Don't believe me, read it for yourself:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

bush misled the Congress and the American people... by claiming that the IWR conditions had been met... in writing, in the hours before the war:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

They mislead you when they say "voted for war".

In fact, there were many efforts in Congress to get the matter back before Congress before bush invaded but the republicans wouldn't let them (Kucinich and the progressive Caucus were very active)

I'm tired of having the misleader in the White House and I am sure you are too. This bush's war, let's not forget it.

[aquart]

81. This discussion is for the primaries ONLY

Come November, you vote Democratic.

If I have to suck in the nausea and vote Lieberman, I will do it. You can vote for Kerry if that's the name on the ballot. So will I no matter what I say here.

There is MORE at stake than the name of the President. JUDGES. JUDGES. JUDGES.

And it DOES make a difference if the man is a Democrat or a Republican because our Republicans are fascists.

[poskonig]

66. I'll cut Kerry some slack over the IWR.

During October, the inspectors weren't even in Iraq. As long as Kerry doesn't get a hard-on about conquering other nations like Lieberman, I'll forgive him for it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. His vote was NOT

"right for this country!" Especially in light of the fact that the Bush cabal has ADMITTED they LIED! How can he say that? An illegal, pre-emptive war that has alienated our allies, killed 1000's of Iraqi's and 500 American soldiers....Is NOT "right for our country." :grr: Damn. Now my blood pressure is sky high! :grr:

[poskonig]

77. You support Clark.

We live in the same glass house.

[in_cog_ni_to]

91. Wes Clark

does not support this Illegal, Pre-emptive Iraqi war.

[aquart]

85. More than 500 soldiers have been killed.

Our lists ONLY count those who died on the scene. They don't include guys who die two weeks later. Or two months, from horrific wounds. We also aren't taking into account the nature of the wounds, according to my sister who lives in San Diego where so many families are bleeding. The wounds aren't "Oh, a bullet, well I'll recover soon and go back to my unit." The wounds mean soldiers in pieces, a leg here, an arm there, and three inches of metal lodged in the brain. Those kinds of wounds.

[in_cog_ni_to]

101. Thanks,

I understand and know that more than 500 have died, I don't know the exact count off the top of my head. It's sad that THEY get lost among all the political discourse. :(

My heart breaks for everyone involved in this damn war. The families of dead and injured soldiers, the soldiers themselves and the Iraqi's who have been killed, their families, the injured Iraqi's and all the babies who will be damaged forever because of it.

I hate George Bush. He's gotta GO!

[Snivi Yllom]

182. bingo

a duck is a duck is a duck

[intheozone]

87. I hate that, why doesn't he just admit the truth,

that he was wrong to vote for that resolution and that he should have opposed any resolution giving * that kind of power. Does he not have the courage to admit his mistake, or does he lack the wisdom to know if was a mistake? Either way, I do not want to be forced to vote for him against *,

[Guaranteed]

98. I feel ya.

I feel like I'd be voting for a wet noodle.

[SheilaT]

94. It's not as though

there weren't THOUSANDS of Americans calling up every single Senator, Congressman, and the White House begging them not to pass this thing. The tallies were tens, hundreds, even thousands of calls against this for every one in favor. The polls showed that the majority of Americans did NOT want to go to war.

Greg Palast sent out an email the other day listing Kerry's top donors. Notice these are all major corporations.

Here is the money behind the new top dog in the Democratic dog pound, John Kerry’s Top Ten Career Patrons calculated by the Center for Public Integrity, Washington.


1. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, Boston $223,046
2. Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Boston $172,387
3. AOL Time Warner Inc., New York $134,960
4. Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston $123,258
5. Hill, Holiday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., Boston $119,300
6. Harvard University $108,700
7. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, NY $105,150
8. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Minneapolis $103,450
9. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., NY $100,000
10. Piper Rudnick, Baltimore $92,300


*Sen. John Kerry also created a soft money committee (Citizen Soldier Fund), which raised approximately $1.35 million in unregulated donations and spent $147,000 in Iowa during the last two years.

added on edit:
here's the link to the book from which the above quote is taken:http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=309&row=0

[isbister]

102. Kerry's top donors

That is over a thirty-five year career. #1 - $223,046.00 - bush makes that in an hour

[TLM]

174. The point is that Kerry is a corporate sell out...

Just like Bush. They are wholly owned property of the corporations that have a death grip on our democracy.


There is only one candidate running who is not similarly owned by special interests and that is Howard Dean.

[tryanhas]

99. "Two Americas"

Last night Kerry was using these words on ABC and NBC, and they are are clearly John Edwards' words.

I have lost all respect for Kerry.

First of all, John Edwards said "Bring it on!" at the DNC winter meeting last year, now Kerry says it all of the time.

Now John Edwards is surging because of his "Two Americas" theme and people in the media like Carville and Mark Shields are talking about how brilliant this guy and his message is.

Now Kerry is once again trying to steal Edwards words.

Now, let me say this.

Edwards actually won Iowa when you look at the fact that he did it the right way, meaning that he stayed within the campaign finance system. Kerry and Dean both opted out, and Dean got trounced still, proving how terrible of a candidate he really is because money couldn't even buy him a top two finish. Kerry is a more formidable opponent, but he had to outspend John Edwards 4 to 1 just to earn TWO MORE DELEGATES than John Edwards did.

Kerry understands this, although a lot of people here don't. That's why Kerry is trying to once again take Edwards words.

Kerry's ads are the reason why he won Iowa, and he flooded the airways with them because he had no spending limits. Compare that to Edwards who worked with spending limits and you will see who the best candidate is, and the one who connected the most with Iowans.

It is Edwards...

[Guaranteed]

103. Edwards was picking up caucusers from Kucinich and Gep nt

[tryanhas]

108. That's a weak argument

Caucus-goers MADE UP THEIR OWN MINDS where they wanted to go.

What Kucinich and Edwards did was nothing but a vote of confidence for the other candidate, and let their supporters know how they felt, but ultimately it was up to the people where they wanted to go, and you can best believe that most of the people there didn't even have a clue about the Edwards/Kucinich thing.

As for Gephardt's supporters, they agreed more with Edwards on a lot of the blue collar issues, so they went to him. Besides, John Edwards was high on the "SECOND CHOICE" list, so of course he picked up a lot in second choice votes.

There was not dirty work going on there.

[HFishbine]

111. And Edwards "borrowed" it

From "Two Americas: Alternative Futures for Child Poverty in the U.S.," John T. Cook and J. Larry Brown, 1993

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:p4EWDSDoNMIJ:nutrition.tufts.edu/pdf/publications/hunger/twoamericas_altfutures.pdf+%22two+americas%22+2000&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[tryanhas]

117. Prove it

Actually, on Edwards' blog, I said, after Ted Koppel's stupid question that I wanted to hear the Senator say, "My campaign is not about Howard Dean, it's about X,Y,Z" and I was glad that they let Edwards say it. Around that time is when the forward-looking campaign began to happen. I would say, because one would have to determine what X,Y, and Z is.

I also was talking a lot about "TWO ECONOMIES" on the Edwards blog. I had no idea that the campaign was working on "Two Americas" until I saw the speech about it. After the speech they began to fine tune that message by talking about what is inside of those two americas, ie, the two economies, two education systems, two health care systems, etc, etc, etc.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't even know if the campaign reads the blog or not, but I have a lot of understanding about things and people.

ALL CAMPAIGNS READ!!! ALL CAMPAIGNS USE MATERIAL THAT THEIR RESEARCH TEAMS COLLECT!

Edwards was STILL the first candidate to talk about the "TWO AMERICAS" and make it a center-piece in his campaign. Now Kerry is trying to use it.

If his team would have read it and used it first then it might be another issue. Besides, plenty of scholars have talked about two Americas. Another guy just released a book talking about it right after I heard Edwards saying it. But all of those people aren't Presidential candidates...

[HFishbine]

129. Were you writing on the Edwards' blog

in 1993? The point being that that phrase has been around a lot longer than this campaign season. Edwards doesn't own it any more than Fox owns "Fair and Balanced."

Welcome to DU. :)

[wtmusic]

125. welcome to DU tryanhas

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[Terwilliger]

104. So the Democrats who voted NO were WRONG for the country

You tell 'em John! You tell them that ignoring the fact that Bush is an ignorant warmonger is good for the country! You tell em that ignoring evidence and facts trumps all those other considerations! You tell 'em that carte blanche for a president to go to war even in peril of ignoring the UN is A-O-K!!!

[Guaranteed]

112. Oooo...that's a NASTY way of putting it.

Voting no was the WRONG thing to do...

Good job! :)

[HFishbine]

113. Excellent point

I would truely like to hear Kerry explain, if his vote was right for America, how he would classify the votes against the IWR.

[isbister]

118. Some...

like Byrd didn't believe the President had the authority to invade. Kerry did. I believe he's right, the President clearly can use the military to defend the national security of the US. That is exactly what bush claimed in March of 2003.

[wtmusic]

126. The national security of the US was not at risk

and we killed 35,000 people on that basis. These are people like you and me, families like yours and mine, but because their skin is brown or they're Muslim or whatever their lives aren't worth as much.

Indefensible.

[redqueen]

137. Sorry

But he does NOT have that authority.

From The Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to declare war ... to raise and support armies ... to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions..."

They abdicated their duties, AFAIC.

In previous cases, they've done the same thing, however only an IDIOT would not have seen the danger of giving THIS squatter the power to do as he pleased with respect to declaring war.

[isbister]

169. WAR POWERS:

Presidents have used the military without Congressional approval a number of times before Iraq... Didn't Clinton last?

TOWARDS UNCHECKED EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY?

On February 24, a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Bush's authority to wage war against Iraq without explicit congressional authorization. The court ruled the dispute to be a non-justiciable political question. The case is now on an expedited appeal to the First Circuit.

At odds in the suit are two opposing views of the constitutional war powers. On one hand are the proponents of the pro-Congress view who read the text, including the Article I, Section 8 Declare War Clause, as allocating important war powers - especially the trigger power - to Congress. They derive textual meaning from the statements of the Framers and their contemporaries, for example, Thomas Jefferson, who observed that the intent of the Declare War Clause was to restrain the "Dog of War" by "transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative..."

On the other side of the debate, the pro-executives contend that presidential executive powers are sufficiently expansive to include the complete range of warmaking decisions, including when and how to conduct hostilities. They argue that, historically and in current practice, rarely has war been "declared" and that the Declare War Clause does not exclude initiating war by other means. The structure and text of the Constitution, the pro-executives argue, confers on the executive ultimate authority for foreign affairs, including launching and prosecuting war. The legislative check rests with the appropriations power, not the Declare War Clause.

In defending against the lawsuit, President Bush brushed aside plaintiffs' Declare War Clause argument, making the broad claim that the Constitution presents no bar to a war on Iraq initiated by the White House without congressional assent. In doing so, the Government has, apparently for the first time in litigation, embraced the most extensive assertions of presidential power marked out by pro-executive academics. Under this view, the President can unilaterally launch a premeditated, preemptive all-out war, whenever, in his sole judgment, he deems it necessary to defend the country's national security interests. The Justice Department argues that the President may proceed without consulting Congress, complying with the War Powers Act, or seeking the sanction of the United Nations. The President's power to make war is not, the White House argues, limited to repelling hostilities nor need it be commensurate with the immediacy or the magnitude of the threat. Rather it can be in pursuit of long-term foreign policy objectives. The President need not show that Iraq aided in the terrorist attacks of September 11 or currently supports the Al Qaeda organization. Regime change is, under the Constitution, a permissible war objective for an American president.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php

[Guaranteed]

176. That has nothing to do with anything.

All you're saying is that Bush didn't have to go to Congress with the issue. So?

[Terwilliger]

138. Claimed in March 2003? The vote was October 2002

and Kerry should have known better

[TLM]

154. This is what Kerry does.... and he's good at it.

He does these thinly veiled backhanded attacks on the folks who had the guts to say NO, while he was concerned only about his career. But he never takes a stand firm enough that he can't weasel back out of it.


Dean may be angry, but at least you know where he stands. With Kerry it's a different story every other day.

[Guaranteed]

186. He reminds me of my mother.

She does exactly the same thing.

[redqueen]

119. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Sorry, it was most definitely not right for the country for its leaders to abdicate the responsibilities they claim to understand.

[ecstatic]

130. Tell that to the 500 dead American troops

Or the thousands of Iraqis who died.

Wow, this guy has a lot of nerve. Right for who? Right wing idiots who didn't take the time to realize that Iraq and Bin Laden were not connected?

[wtmusic]

140. Like your 'dream cabinet'

is dreaming still legal? ;-)

[bloom]

142. I am saddened to hear that

blah

[TLM]

145. Yet another reason I will not vote for this spineless fraud...

He just spent the last f-ing week arguing about being against the war and that he was tricked by that oh so clever Mr. Bush. In a state where most folks were against the war, Kerry's also against the war.

Now he's in more conservative NH and running against Clark... now suddenly his war vote was the right thing for the country.


F*** Kerry and the fence he rode in on.

[wtmusic]

151. I would trust Dean more with national security

in spite of Kerry's war record. At least Dean's actions reflect his rhetoric.

[Snivi Yllom]

146. he says he was right but misled

Im not buying it. He knew exactly what the vote was. I would have a lot more respect for him if he just admitted it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

160. Well, he and bush agree on what's "right" for the country.

So, the Kerry apologists will tell us that he was "misled", which is the equivalent of saying that he's stupid. What a great Democrat to run for president. I think not.

[killbotfactory]

163. "Comeback Kerry" came back to the Pro-war side.

500 dead American soldiers thank him for having the courage to capitulate to Bush.

[barbaraann]

168. Kerry is from the kinder, gentler wing of Skull and Bones.

That wing wants to keep world strife humming along at a constant, controlled level rather than the frenzied, mind-bogglingly bloodthirsty pace of the BFEE, but nevertheless chaotic and violent.

I cannot support anyone whose foreign policy is based on the Boner meme "The world is a dangerous place," which I have personally heard Kerry say. That's when he lost me permanently.

Bonesmen MAKE the world a dangerous place so that they can profit from the chaos.

I want peace in the world. You cannot prepare for war and work toward peace at the same time. (Didn't Einstein say that?)

[Jacobin]

181. Disgusting and Depressing

And people don't understand why Dems go Green.....Jeezus fricking Christ.

[Jacobin]

184. Important that the latest flip flop be properly explained away

I'm still waiting for a cogent response from a supporter.....at least one that I can buy, since it looks as if we may be doomed to actually vote for Senator WhichWayShouldIVoteToday.

[WiseMen]

187. Kerry has been totally consistent. His views annoyingly not simple.

[Guaranteed]

189. What he did was wrong. nt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

190. No. What Bush did was wrong.

Read the Globe endoresment:

(Kerry's)... position today is the same as the one he took early on. In a meeting with the Globe's editorial board 15 months ago, he explained his vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying he felt the president deserved the backing of Congress to take with him into negotiations at the United Nations Security Council.

It isn't convenient, perhaps, but the realities of disarming Saddam Hussein and rebuilding Iraq are immensely complex. As Kerry put it more recently: '' `No' is not a policy.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/022/editorials/Kerry_in_New_HampshireP.shtml

[Guaranteed]

191. Kerry knew what Bush was going to do.

EVERYONE knew what Bush was going to do. And Kerry helped to authorize it. That truth is very simple.

[Loren645]

192. Errr, how was it..."good for the country"? Was his Patriot Act vote good

for the country too???