Kerry IWR Vote RIGHT. IWR=Pro-War Is Bogus. Kerry is OUR ManOfPeace.

[WiseMen]

(Reposted in reponse to swath of Anti-Kerry IWR thread. Original post was deemed out of bounds. There is no intention to be inflamatory, but to objectively address issues. I have removed Large Text, and any criticized specific person or group. Please note the content of the Anti-IWR, Anti-Kerry posts currently active)


I am usually as very calm guy. But I am getting really upset.

For the Nth time: “IWR = Pro-War” is a wedge tactic invented by Kerry opponents. IMHO It is not the truth. Kerry vocally opposed war except as a last resort against imminent treat. It is totally infuriating that vicious remarks from Anti-War Dems regarding Kerry’s IWR vote continue apace, especially since Kerry, against all odd, without the big endorsements or the big money, took this issue to the voters of Iowa and won hands down.

Infuriating, also, because these remarks show so little consciousness of the
U.S. role in the region, so little guilt regarding complicity in the Iraqi
tragedy, the millions dead, the abominable poisons that fell on the enemies of
Saddam with U.S. acquiescence -- and for U.S. geopolitical goals. It is
infuriating that newly minted minions of a newly reborn peace-marcher can
see only black or white. They cannot understand that, as much as it was
atrociously criminal to do what the Bush did in 2003, it was just as evil to do
nothing but maintain people-punishing sanctions while the multi-decade reign of
atrocities of “our man in Bagdad” continued. There was a better way, and that
is what John Kerry, and the French and the Germans, and the Russians and the
Chinese, and the Canadians, and the Mexicans ….. voted for with UN 1441.

I repeat here my personal argument for why reasonable anti-war democrats should
accept Kerry’s vote.

John Kerry, had little choice in his IWR vote. A “no” vote would have been a
tactical coup to hold his anti-war base among Party activist. But, for reasons
of presidential politics, national policy, as well as concerns for precedent, a
“yes” vote on the Iraq War Resolution was the CORRECT VOTE for Kerry,
presidential candidate and Senior Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

Anti-war democrats should rally behind Kerry and accept his decision based on
his long record. Kerry is the guy who bucked the admirals of the navy and for 3 years camped on the bus, slept on the grass, marched the streets and confronted Senators, to stop an unjust war.
This is OUR John Kerry the “Tough Dove” – fiercely opposing the corrupt use of
American military force, but unflinching when he though force was absolutely
necessary. It is time for the Anti-War Dems to GET OVER the IWR vote, and get behind the ONLY democratic leader prepared to win the White House and lead the nation in these times.

Presidential Politics

Since Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan over the Iran Hostages, Dovishness has
spelled doom in national political campaigns. Clinton chose Gore over Kerry
as his 1992 running mate, reportedly because Kerry had opposed the first Gulf
War while Gore had joined the Republicans to support it. Clinton had to
compensate for his weak-on-defense image.

Curiously enough, Kerry opposed the Gulf war because he saw U.S. militarization
of the region as a potential long-term disaster. Kerry had led the
investigation of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld duplicitous involvement in the
Iran-Iraq War during the 80's and saw that the Gulf conflict was not just
avoidable, but a war that should be avoided.

Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean,
voted for that War: a war that desecrated the Muslim Holy Lands, turned the
formerly pro-U.S. Islamic radicals into Anti-American Jihadist and led more
than a decade of death and tragedy for people in the region. But that vote for
war qualified him to be Vice President of the United States.

In 2000, once again, John Kerry was on the V.P. shortlist, but Gore picked the
hawkish Joe “the unimpeachable” Lieberman.

So, no doubt Senator John “twice burned” Kerry, now a presidential candidate,
Could have been reluctant to play the dove on the IWR in the face of a purported threat of
“mass destruction” from Saddam ‘the devil” Hussein. Kerry, the Senator, could
have voted NO to register his distrust of Bush regime intentions. Kerry, the
Presidential Candidate, had to give deference to the word of the sitting
President and consider Democratic vulnerabilities in ’04. He had to vote “YES.”

Policy

For more than a decade Kerry had broken with liberal non-interventionism and
argued for a proactive U.S. foreign policy to address world humanitarian
crises, WMD proliferation, and global terrorism. In his book, “The New War,”
(1997), Kerry pulls together insights from 3 terms on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a decade as Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations. He argued
forcefully for a realignment of U.S. military and intelligence posture to
defend against new threats to U.S. global interests and national infrastructure
and called for urgent preemptive executive action, warning: "It will take
only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change
the world in a single day."

On the campaign trail Kerry stated the policy position that led to his
difficult IWR vote:

"Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without
diplomacy and diplomacy without force. We need to take the third path in
foreign policy – not a hard unilateralism or a soft isolationism – but a bold,
progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that
commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity.

If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure,
we won't win back the White House – and we won't deserve to."
-- John Kerry, December 16, 2003


Precedent

John Kerry led the anti-Vietnam war movement not as a pacifist, but as a war
hero who, after 6 years in combat, came to question the morality of U.S.
military tactics and the justice of American policy for the region. Since
Vietnam, Kerry has supported the principled use of force and has backed U.S.
military ventures, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, Somalia and Haiti. In Bosnia,
Kerry supported covert action to oppose “ethnic cleansing.” In Kosovo, he went
further than the Clinton administration, arguing (on the side of NATO Supreme
Commander, Wesley Clark, incidentally) that ground troops should remain as an
option for stopping former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's violent
crackdown on the Serbian province's ethnic Albanian majority.

Precedent regarding Saddam Hussein could not be clearer. While, Kerry opposed
the main resolution authorizing force in the Persian Gulf in 1991, he has since
criticized both former President Clinton and his successor, President Bush, for
missed opportunities to return inspectors to Iraq to end the risk of Iraqi WMD
proliferation.
In 1998 Kerry joined John McCain to argue for forceful and effective action, covert
or otherwise, to enforce U.N. inspections or remove the Saddam regime. In a
Feb. 23, 1998 press release on the Iraq dilemma Kerry stated:

“This is the first issue of proliferation in the post Cold War period. It is
imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the Western world to
make it clear that we cannot allow by any nation to possess and use those kinds
of weapons.”

Given this precedent, a vote against Bush’s September, 2002, Iraq War
Resolution, in this post-9/11 national security environment, would have exposed
Kerry to a charge of enormous hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery.

In voting “yes” on the IWR Kerry said he had to trust the President of the
United States when he said that war would be “a last resort”. At the time of
the vote, in a substantial, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said
he would strongly opposed any unilateral movement to war and that he did not
believe that Saddam’s threat was yet imminent. He kept is word and led
opposition to unilateral action during the U.N. debates, Bush’s “rush to war,”
and the administration’s duplicitous and inept foreign policy.

Conclusion

John Kerry has been handed the lot of a fighter for most of his adult life.
With his vote for the IWR, Kerry risked his presumptive right to lead a campaign
for which he as prepared for a lifetime -- a campaign to overthrow the Bush
regime.

At the same time, John Kerry knows that that same vote is part of a necessary
armor against the republican onslaught, should he, against all odds, end up as
the standard-bearer for the Party in the ’04 election.

[Jacobin]

1. Why did he say that his vote was the "right thing to do"?

Look, it's apparent that you are an enthusiastic Kerry supporter. Please keep in mind that there are enthusiastic supporters of other potential nominees.

You have done a lot of work to put together your post. There has been many an apologia issued on Kerry's behalf, not the least by Mr. Pitt.

What has many puzzled, including me, is why he at times distances himself from the vote, then claims he was fooled into the vote and most recently says it was "the right thing to do"?

[aquart]

2. He caved.

And I don't want the guy who talks good and hands all the power in the nation to a fascist son of Barbara.

He did it. He went with the flow. He did what everybody else was doing except the guys with guts.

It's genuinely sad. If he'd voted against it, he'd be the man.

[Snivi Yllom]

99. of course he caved

And now he wont admit it.

There are two positions.

1. The use of force was necessary to defend the US.

2. The use of force was not necessary to defend the US.

Kerry voted that it was necessary but now waffles and tries to tell us it was not necessary.

You can't have it both ways.

[XanaDUer]

3. And the strange part is,

after calling himself an anti-war candidate (Dean), he supported BL!

Go figure.

[denverbill]

4. That's a stretch.

I suppose the Tonkin Gulf resolution was also anti-war.

Congress was given the power to declare war by the Constitution. All this resolution did was abdicate responsibility for making that decision. Any way you slice it it was wrong.

Anyone who voted for the resolution did so for one of two reasons:
1) he was willing to blindly trust Bush
2) he had no idea what he was voting for.

Neither position is particularly admirable, IMO.

[Jacobin]

5. There is a third possibility which disturbs me the most

3) He knew what was going to happen and that Bush would go to war no matter what, but thought (idiotically) that things would "go well" as in GWI and that he would look a fool if he didn't support it and it would ruin his presidential run.

That's the one I pick. Which is why I cannot support him.

[denverbill]

27. Yes, the 'finger in the wind' strategy.

I should have included that in my list, because that's exactly why I believe he voted like he voted.

Frankly, I can't believe the people here trying to paint this vote as 'anti-war'.

I, for one, will never forget the Democrats crapping on the Constitution with their Pledge of Allegiance nonsense. Not only did the Senate unanimously rebuke the 9th Circuit for their correct assertion the 'under God' in the Pledge promotes religion, but they all ran out onto the Capital steps and recited the Pledge, SCREAMING 'under God' extra loud.

[edzontar]

114. Sadly, I think this is the real reason...a real come down

For a guy who spoke out bravely and effectively against an earlier criminal war.

IWR=Tonkin Gulf, but is actually worse, since anyone with a brain--and EVERYONE who voted for it-- knew this was going to end up with the Puekboy getting his war.

EVERYONE knew.

It was the one certain thing in an uncertain universe.

I knew. My wife knew. The TV punditoids knew.

If you wanted the war--for whatever reason--includng politcal expediency-- you voted for it.

If you didn't, you voted no.

Pretty simple.

Don't let them re-write history.

[KoKo]

9. Third option: Cover your Butt if you're running for President or your

folks at home will through you out of office for being "Unpatriotic!"

It took true courage to vote NO. Even if they had held out in support of any of the Amendments which were offered, or argued against it like Robert Byrd did so eloquently.

Kerry did give a speech but he didn't join the debate that Byrd and Kennedy put to together against John Warner. If they had debated for weeks and put up a real fight and then voted......I maybe could be a little more forgiving.

[overground1]

24. Kerry wants it both ways

[Duder]

6. Kerry = IWR vote = yes

Primary = Kerry vote = no.

[Walt Starr]

7. Don't look now

Kerry couldn't get the blood out fom under his fingernails either.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. IWR Litmus Tests Are Stupid, IMO

My candidate said it best recently, IMO. I only wish I could remember what he said. :D

DTH

[Padraig18]

10. Support this statement, WiseMen:

"...Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean, voted for that War: ...."

Show me where Governor Dean supported Al Gore's vote back then> This is factually FALSE, and I demand that you edit it out.

[Padraig18]

11. Rule #8 kick.

"8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google."

[Padraig18]

13. Second Rule #8 violation kick

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[Padraig18]

14. Well?

I'm waiting...

[Padraig18]

23. *crickets chirping*

[Padraig18]

30. *more crickets begin chirping*

[Padraig18]

32. *a whole chorus of crickets chirping*

[Padraig18]

37. *frogs join the chorus of crickets, providing bass vocals*

[WiseMen]

45. I try to write very carefully, as a matter of principle.

I wrote:
"Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean, voted for that War: "

Note that I said: "supported by a few conservative democrats"

I was very involved with the issue at this time and that is my recollection. I don't have the hard copy in front of me -- this was
before all the news was online.

Note that I said: .."such as Howard Dean"

"such as" is a loosely associating modifier to the previous clause.
It means Dean could be viewed as an example of a group. I believe
that to be a generally accepted piece of information. That is how it was percieved in 1991. My recollection was that the majority of Democratic leaders were following the lead of Kerry and other senators with Foreign Policy experience and taking positions against the Gulf War resolution.

I believe evidence of Dr. Dean general tendency to support this type
of U.S. intervention can be evidenced by his lobbying for Clinton
unilateral intervention in the Balkans. I believe this is a generally
accepted piece of information.

[WiseMen]

15. Dean said it himself. check w/ his campaign. Even recently he listed it.

[Padraig18]

16. Not good enough

YOU wrote it, you prove it. Them's the rules.

[GreenArrow]

35. Not a rules violation, IMO

From the Dem debate in Albuquerque:

HOWARD DEAN: ...

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

Al Gore's support of the First Gulf War is common knowledge. The Senate Vote in support of Gulf War I was very close and nearly on party lines and Gore was one of the leading Democrats who jumped ship to support the Elder Bush's war.

Howard Dean, by his own admission, did support Gulf War One, as did Al Gore, and a small group of largely conservative Democrats in the US Senate. While it's doubtful that Howard Dean's position had any effect on Al Gore's, it is indisputable that both were prominent Democratic politicans who held favorable opinions towards what was, at the time, an unpopular war with the majority of Democrats.

[Padraig18]

17. Rule #8 kick

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[Padraig18]

18. I intend to keep this kicked until that's changed, or until it's locked. n

[JVS]

19. kick

[Padraig18]

20. Thanks!

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[JohnLocke]

60. Thank you, officer!

I missed your moderator symbol.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. He's right, Wisemen.

Dr. Dean was Lt. Gov of Vermont during the 1st Gulf War, and it's highly unlikely that he 'supported Al Gore' and his vote, or did so for the public record. If he did, i would also like to see some proof.

[bigtree]

39. I guess we can't trust his own words

From the Dem debate in Albuquerque:

HOWARD DEAN: ...

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

[WiseMen]

43. I try to write very carefully, as a matter of principle.

I try to write very carefully, as a matter of principle. I wrote:
"Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean, voted for that War: "

Note that I said: "supported by a few conservative democrats"

I was very involved with the issue at this time and that is my recollection. I don't have the hard copy in front of me -- this was
before all the news was online.

Note that I said: .."such as Howard Dean"

"such as" is a loosely associating modifier to the previous clause.
It means Dean could be viewed as an example of a group. I believe
that to be a generally accepted piece of information. That is how it was percieved in 1991. My recollection was that the majority of Democratic leaders were following the lead of Kerry and other senators with Foreign Policy experience and taking positions against the Gulf War resolution.

I believe evidence of Dr. Dean general tendency to support this type
of U.S. intervention can be evidenced by his lobbying for Clinton
unilateral intervention in the Balkans. I believe this is a generally
accepted piece of information.

[Padraig18]

Ummm...

"...conservative Democrats such as Howard Dean..." clearly and unequivocally implies that Howard Dean was among those conservative Democrats supporting Al Gore at the time, and any other reading is tortured.

[WiseMen]

80. Dear Sir/Madam, do you apply this type of hermeneutics to all posts?

I read a lot of posts and I don't see the kind of precision
that you are insisting on.

[WiseMen]

49. I tried to be precise. See line 45

[Padraig18]

62. "Do, or do not; there is no 'try'. " ---Yoda n/t

[IrateCitizen]

12. Voting FOR the IWR makes him a "man of peace"???

:wtf:

Let me clue you in on something here -- voting to authorize use of military force does NOT make someone a "man of peace". In fact, it makes them quite the opposite.

John Kerry is no man of peace. He is a politician, and he cast that vote out of concern for his political survival and the furthering of his political ambitions. That's not a good nor bad thing -- but rather, it's just a "thing". But it does not make him anything close to a "man of peace".

Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and Jesus were all men of peace. Please enlighten me as to which one of THEM would have voted for the IWR, and then you can apply that mantle to John Kerry. Until then, your argument is quite suspect.

[WiseMen]

21. French Voted for UN 1441, but strongly opposed War. Same as Kerry

Why is it so difficult to understand?

At least 9 Members of the United Nations Security Council voted for UN 1441 which was similar to the IWR and were firmly against war. Are you going to condemn all countries – 1441 was unanimous.

Check Excerpts from great speech from French Foreign Minister and tell me how much you condemn the French for voting for 1441.

Speech by Dominique de Villepin at the U.N.Security Council

http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt.gb.asp?ART=32390


The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?

In response to this question, France has two convictions:

-The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
-The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

….

……………
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.

. . . . .
There are two options:
- The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

……………………
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.
Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
- The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.

- Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

- We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly.
This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together.
That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.


………………………………..

Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.

Thank you.



Press release
19/03
Adress by H.E. Mr. Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, before the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Iraq
(New York, March 19, 2003)
«We are meeting here today a few hours before the weapons sound. To exchange our convictions again in observance of our respective commitments. But also to outline together the paths that must allow us to recover the spirit of unity.
I wish to reiterate here that for France war can only be the exception, and collective responsibility the rule. Whatever our aversion for Saddam Hussein's cruel regime, that holds true for Iraq and for all the crises that we will have to confront together.
1 - To Mr. Blix, who presented his work program to us, and Mr. ElBaradei, who was represented today, I want to say thank you for the sustained efforts and for the results achieved. Their program is a reminder that there is still a clear and credible prospect for disarming Iraq peacefully. It proposes and prioritizes the tasks for such disarmament and presents a realistic timetable for their implementation.
In doing so the report confirms what we all know here: Yes, the inspections are producing tangible results. Yes, they offer the prospect of effective disarmament through peaceful means and in shorter time-frames.
The path we mapped out together in the context of resolution 1441 still exists. In spite of the fact that it has been interrupted today, we know that it will have to resume as soon as possible.
The Council took note two days ago of the Secretary- General's decision to withdraw the inspectors and all UN personnel from Iraq. The discharge of their mandates has consequently been suspended. It will be necessary when the time comes to complete our knowledge about Iraq's programs and finish disarming Iraq. The contribution of the inspectors will be decisive at that time.
2 - Make no mistake about it: the choice is indeed between two visions of the world.
To those who choose to use force and think they can resolve the world's complexity through swift and preventive action, we offer in contrast determined action over time. For today, to ensure our security, all the dimensions of the problem must be taken into account: both the manifold crises and their many facets, including cultural and religious. Nothing lasting in international relations can be built therefore without dialogue and without respect for the other, without exigency and abiding by principles, especially for the democracies that must set the example. To ignore this is to run the risk of misunderstanding, radicalization and spiraling violence. This is even more true in the Middle East, an area of fractures and ancient conflicts where stability must be a major objective for us.
To those who hope to eliminate the dangers of proliferation through armed intervention in Iraq, I wish to say that we regret that they are depriving themselves of a key tool for other crises of the same type. The Iraq crisis allowed us craft an instrument, through the inspections regime, which is unprecedented and can serve as an example. Why, on this basis not envision establishing an innovative, permanent structure, a disarmament body under the United Nations?
To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through the case of Iraq, we say they run the risk of failing in their objective. The outbreak of force in this area which is so unstable can only exacerbate the tensions and fractures on which the terrorists feed.
3 - Over and above our division, we have a collective responsibility in the face of these threats, the responsibility to recover the unity of the international community. The United Nations must remain mobilized in Iraq to aid this objective. Together, we have duties to assume in this perspective.
- First of all, to staunch the wounds, the wounds of war. As always, war brings with it its share of victims, suffering and displaced people. So it is a matter of urgency to prepare now to provide the requisite humanitarian assistance. This imperative must prevail over our differences. The Secretary-General has already begun to mobilize the various UN agencies to this end. France will take its full part in the collective effort to assist the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food program must be continued under the authority of the Security Council with the necessary adjustments. We are waiting for the Secretary-General's proposals.
- Next, it is necessary to build peace. No country by itself has the means to build Iraq's future. In particular, no state can claim the necessary legitimacy. It is from the United Nations alone that the legal and moral authority can come for such an undertaking. Two principles must guide our action: respect for the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq; and the preservation of its sovereignty.
- By the same token, it is for the United Nations to set out the framework for the country's economic reconstruction. A framework that will have to affirm the two complementary principles of transparency and development of the country's resources for the benefit of the Iraqis themselves.
4 - Our mobilization must also extend to the other threats that we have to address together. Given the very nature of these threats, it is no longer possible today to address them in any old order. By way of example, terrorism is fueled by organized crime networks; it cleaves to the contours of lawless areas; it thrives on regional crises; it garners support from the divisions in the world; it utilizes all available resources, from the most rudimentary to the most sophisticated, from the knife to the weapons of mass destruction it is trying to acquire. To deal with this reality, we must act in a united way and on all fronts at the same time.
5 - So we must remain constantly mobilized.
In this spirit France renews its call for the heads of state and government to meet here in the Security Council in New York, to respond to the major challenges confronting us.
Let us intensify our fight against terrorism. Let us fight mercilessly against its networks with all the economic, juridical and political weapons available to us.
Let us give new impetus to the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. France has already proposed that our heads of state and government meet on the sidelines of the next General Assembly to define the new priorities for our action.
Let us recover the initiative in the regional conflicts that are destabilizing entire regions. I am thinking in particular of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How much suffering must the peoples of the region still endure for us to force the doors to peace? Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable.
In a world where the threat is asymmetrical, where the weak defy the strong, the power of conviction, the capacity to convince, the ability to sway opinion count as much as the number of divisions. They do not replace them. But they are the indispensable aids of a state's influence.
6 - Faced with this new world, it is imperative that the action of the international community should be guided by principles.
First of all, respect for law. The keystone of international order, it must apply in all circumstances, but even more so when the gravest decision is to be made: to use force. Only on this condition can force be legitimate. Only on this condition can it restore order and peace.
Next, the defense of freedom and justice. We must not compromise with what is central to our values. We will be listened to and heeded only if we are inspired by the very ideals of the United Nations.
Lastly, the spirit of dialogue and tolerance. Never have the peoples of the world aspired so forcefully to its respect. We must listen to their appeal.
Mr. President, as we see clearly, the United Nations has never been so necessary. It is up to this body to harness all the resolve to meet these challenges. Because the United Nations is the place where international rules and legitimacy are founded. Because it speaks in the name of peoples. In response to the clash of arms there must be a single upwelling of the spirit of responsibility, voice and gesture from the international community that is gathered here in New York, in the Security Council.
This is in the interest of all: the countries engaged in the conflict, the states and peoples in the region, the international community as a whole. Confronted with a world in crisis, we have a moral and political obligation to restore the threads of hope and unity.
The judgment of future generations will depend on our capacity to meet this great challenge in furtherance of our values, our common destiny and peace.
Thank you Mr. President.»

[Padraig18]

22. I would like to see PROOF of your statement about Howard Dean.

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.

[Zinnola]

25. Go Padraig

:kick:

[Padraig18]

29. Thanks! I intend to.

I'm tired of deliberate misrepresentations about my candidate, and I'm not going to let them pass anymore!

[bigtree]

40. Gov. Dean's word not good enough?

From the Dem debate in Albuquerque:

HOWARD DEAN: ...

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. ...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

[Padraig18]

42. Read the statement I objected to.

He specifically said Gov. Dean 'and other conservative Democrats' supported Al Gore in 1990. He has not provided a quote from 1990, not has he provided proof that Gov. Dean is a 'conservative Democrat'.

[bigtree]

48. The point was that Gov. Dean supported the war.

Al Gore did too.

The view that Al Gore is a conservative Democrat may be justified by his association with the DLC, which advocates many conservative positions.

[Padraig18]

57. MY point was that the statement is incorrect.

The fact that no quotation from 1990 has been provided, nor has evidence that Howard Dean is a 'conservative Democrat', speaks eloquently to the falsity of the statement.

[nathan_avery1985]

88. Howard Dean WAS A CENTRIST GOVERNOR. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE!!!!!

Here is some EVIDENCE---

The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said."
(Miles Benson, "And Politicians Wonder Why They Aren’t Trusted," Times-Picayune , 3/5/95)

EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection,’ proclaims Annette Smith, the director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from the OMYA Corporation's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were ‘going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?’”
Michael Colby, editor Wild Monthly, Counter Punch, 2/22/03

[Padraig18]

91. 'Centrist' is not 'conservative'.

Zell Miller is 'conservative'; Howard Dean is NOT, by your own admission.

Next!

[edzontar]

115. Al Gore was also a CENTRIST then--NOT conservative

And he is much less "centrist" now--which I LIKE...but he was never a "conservative" in the Boll Weevil, Phil Gramm, Zell Miller, sell-out to Reagan sense.

So the statement, as my friend had repeatedly asserted, is not just a falsehood, but a COMPOUND FALSEHOOD.

[terrisel]

28. Kerry was sceptical of Bush and Iraq Intentions After 9/11

I recall seeing Kerry being interviewed briefly by a reporter when the war in Afghanistan was being planned. He expained the resolution to use force at that time by saying that it was authorized for a specific country and thit if Bush wanted to expand that, for example to Iraq, he would have to go back to Congress and make that case before he could proceed. I realized from that interview that Kerry was sceptical and possibly thought Bush was trying to use the 9/11 attack as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Later when Gephardt was asked why he was voting for the resolution to attack Iraq and many other Democrats in Congress were not, Gephardt was quoted as saying that perhaps he had information that the others did not.

This is what I believe happened: Cheney was stuck with Congress because his original plan didn't fly.

(Remember Cheney's original plan after 9/11 and the anthrax scare was to shut down Congress-he wanted to just meet with the Republican and Democratic leaders to set policy, and have yhe other representatives go home-if I recall correctly the Republicans agreed but the Democrats refused and Congress continued in session).

Cheney's fall back position was to split the Democrats into 2 camps on Iraq by giving some of them "top-secret" information (those they considered influential or important. The influential Congresspeople received intelligence that was "top-secret" and which indicated that the administration had irrefutable evidence that Iraq had WMD that could attack the US and that this evidence was not even going to be presented to the UN because it would be too dangerous to be made public.

They were then told that if they revealed any details they would be endangering the lives of American operatives in the field, as well as fiends in Iraq and that themselves would would be subject to arrest and prosecution as traitors. (Senator Graham has already said that their was information he had re preventability of 9/11 but could not reveal or he would be prosecuted).

What would you do under those circumstances?-remember even Powell the Dove was backing the Bush position that Iraq was a threat. In this scenario Congresspeople who had been co-opted would have been acting on secret "information" that was not out in the public in any form. Therefore when they saw the shaky evidence presented by Powell at the UN, they would not be suspicious of its weakness because they would "know" that this was not the meat of the evidence.

Only when the WMD did not materialize they would relize that they had been conned by the Master Con Artists ,and now have to figure out what to do about it.

[Iverson]

31. incorrect

A blank check to an illegitimate administration looks no wiser or braver when it's called pragmatism.

[JVS]

33. Yup

[Padraig18]

34. Well said, Iverson!

i'm proud to say that my senator, Mr. Durbin, supported the Constitution and voted with 22 of his Democratic colleagues against the IWR. :)

[bigtree]

46. Blank Check

is a misrepresentation of the bill. Nothing in the bill mandated that Bush push foward with war. Indeed the bill attempted to moderate that push by advocating the exhaustion of diplomatic means. The authority to commit our forces didn't originate with that bill. Bush had all of the authority he needed to commit our forces as did decades of presidents before him who exercised that authority without congressional approval. Indeed, the bill did succeed in allowing the inspectors in. We use their assessment (Blix's) to bolster the case that Saddan posed no immediate threat. The threat of force implied in the resolution forced Saddam's hand on the inspections. Blix wanted more time. Bush balked and then invaded.

Bush betrayed the intention of the legislation. He pushed foward to unilateral, preemptive war, despite the efforts in the bill to reign him in.

[Iverson]

53. incorrect

"Nothing in the bill mandated that Bush push foward with war."

Nothing forces any individual to cash a blank check, but the likelihood of it happening is so overwhelming that we should be ashamed even to make it a topic of debate.

"Indeed the bill attempted to moderate that push by advocating the exhaustion of diplomatic means."

This is mere cleverness with language, since "advocating" isn't "mandating," and one sentence ago you seemed sensitive to the concept of mandating. Further, anyone who was awake at the time should recall the open scorn that Bush showed for the UN and the inspectors.

"Bush had all of the authority he needed to commit our forces as did decades of presidents before him who exercised that authority without congressional approval."

red herring: An admittedly wrong act in the past does not make its repetition right. Further, "committing forces" is supposed to have certain limits, none of which I see as having been present in this adventure.

"Indeed, the bill did succeed in allowing the inspectors in."

This is simply false.

"Bush betrayed the intention of the legislation."

No, Bush used the legislation exactly as he intended, and most people who were awake knew at the time what would happen.

Thank you for playing. Carol will give a copy of our home game.

[bigtree]

81. You have your opinion of the IWR

I have mine.

The IWR was not a ticket to war. Pick that apart all you want. I won't try to find any more words to describe my opinion. In your zeal against the war you have cast many Democrats as favoring the war. This is a disgusting smear of many well-intentioned Democrats who wanted the best for the country and expected the best from our president. Unfortunately, he took a reckless detour from the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community.

I am holding hard on Bush for his reckless rush to war. I will not put the blame on any Democrat, save Zell Miller. Good luck with your assault on Jonh Kerry, though.

[Iverson]

89. when nothing else works, personalize the argument

"Good luck with your assault on Jonh Kerry, though."

To equate opposition to this war and the IWR votes, all of them, with an assault on John Kerry is to reveal a partisan narrowness at odds with reality.

"In your zeal against the war you have cast many Democrats as favoring the war."

One need not have zeal in order to accurately identify a diversity of opinion within a group.

"This is a disgusting smear of many well-intentioned Democrats ..."

I find phony umbrage an unpersuasive tactic. I recommend abandoning it.

"... and expected the best from our president."

What evidence existed for this expectation, and what support deserves to be given to this incredible level of naivete? Since this is literally a life and death issue, my answer is "none."

We may all have opinions, including those about whether the sun will rise or no. Some of us understand what's bloody obvious. If you'd like to make further personal comments, please proceed.

edited typo

[bigtree]

92. You have twisted John Kerry's vote into a pro-war expression

You have described his vote as support for the invasion. None of his statements before, during, or after the vote come close to supporting immediate invasion. But you insist that he gave cover to Bush on the war. Nothing in his statements bear that out. Nothing. But you will go back to his vote to characterize him as pro-war. That is the weakness of your argument. You can spout all of your feeling about the vote but you can't find any of his statements that would suggest that he is pro-war.

So you call me phony and insist that everyone knows the truth (your version). You describe his "incredible level of naivete?" you argue strongly. But you won't credit the man's argument for his vote, expressed fully before and after the vote. You will put your own spin on his beliefs, based on your low opinion of him and then you claim to be oh so concerned about the war, not Kerry, but the war and the dying. As if you are the only one who could possibly care about the war because, praise you, you didn't support the IWR.

But my point was that a lot of people thought the IWR had a chance to forestall Bush's push to war. You don't see this, I know, but that was the view of a lot of IWR supporters. They said so. You can call them liars or dishonest, but that was their view. That was the intention of some with their affirmative vote. That was Sen. Kerry's stated intent, before and after the vote, and up until Bush invaded. You want to label him as a liar and a warmonger but you have to put your own interpretation of the IWR on Kerry to carry that on. You can't smear him with his words to prove that he supported Bush's rush to war. You just use the vote, and your interpretation of it.

Others don't share your interpretation. Other good, true Democrats. So what is so bloody obvious in your interpretation may not be so bloody obvious to others who take a different view of the IWR. It happens with legislation that we sometimes put our own views on it. That's how bills pass with diverse coalitions: Everyone thinking that their part of the bill will prevail. As you may have observed, these forced bills usually fall apart, often at the hands of those who would implement them. Legislators always try to put their goals in flawed legislation even, on the chance that their initiative within the bill will prevail. This is something that has become more prevalent with the republican majority dominating legislation and reducing Democrat participation to a 'no' vote. Democrats in this atmosphere often put their mark on a snowballing bill knowing that the heart of it is rotten but determined enough in their belief that their measure of the bill will take precedence. With a republican majority, sometimes that's all you can do to effect legislation.

Good luck with your assault on those who voted on the IWR, though.

[Iverson]

93. Who could have known that Bush would invade Iraq???

We were shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!

:eyes:

[bigtree]

97. Congress did know. They spoke of it in the debate.

And some tried to influence the outcome by voting for the IWR. They had language included that pushed Bush back to the U.N. He balked, but that was the intent of some; stated before and after the vote. To push the question back to the U. N. The argument was undercut by Bush refusing to be "dictated to" by the U.N. We lost that effort. Only had the votes to fillibuster. Not to sustain the fillibuster. Politics. Nasty buisness.

[Iverson]

101. ah yes, the "debate"

Some people such as Sen. Robert Byrd had a grasp of the obvious. Here's a passage.

"Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time."

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm

[Iverson]

102. and another

"A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-04.htm

[Iverson]

103. John Nichols on Rob't Byrd

"Even though he is unlikely to succeed in preventing a Congressional grant of blank-check warmaking powers to the Bush administration, Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has done America the service of clarifying the issue at hand. Thanks to Byrd's fierce denunciations of an unnecessary resolution to promote an unnecessary war, members of Congress who side with the administration will not be able to plead ignorance to the charge that they abandoned their Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities in order to position themselves for the fall election."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1009-03.htm

[Iverson]

106. Whoops! More from Sen. Byrd

"We are voting on this new Bush doctrine of preventive strikes--preemptive strikes. There is nothing in this Constitution about preemptive strikes. Yet in this rag here, this resolution, we are about to vote to put the imprimatur of the Congress on that doctrine. That is what the Bush administration wants us to do. They want Congress to put its stamp of approval on that Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.

...

, if we are going to make it a blank check, let's make it a blank check right upfront, without all of these flowery fig leaves of "whereas" clauses, and simply say that the president has this power. Give it to him and we will put up a sign on the top of this Capitol: "Out of business." "Gone home." "Gone fishing."

We are giving to the president of the United States a blank check, and Congress cannot do that. Congress should not do that. Where is the termination? Where is the deadline? Where is the sunset language that says after this happens this resolution shall no longer exist? There is nothing. This goes on to the next president of the United States."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1009-07.htm

[bigtree]

105. So you have chosen words that support your position

There are other opposite views within the party. You know it. You disagree with them so you ignore their words and label their intentions with your opinion of their IWR vote. But their words spoke volumes of their intentions in the vote. Words in opposition to the IWR you accept. Words in favor of the IWR that explain their reluctant support, you disregard.

[Iverson]

107. desperate

Your need in rebuttal to engage in characterizations of me is unpersuasive.

Don't worry. I know I can't stop you from thinking that the IWR was a noble effort at peace when ascribed to Kerry. However, other people read too, and some of them can discern what is evidence and what is credible testimony and what is not.

[bigtree]

109. I've written more on this issue than this titter with you

I have characterized your argument. I can't possibly know you. I regret that you have labeled my argument as dishonest and I am scrambling to keep our debate on the issue of the IWR vote. But your argument stretches to motives. Both mine in my argument and Sen. Kerry's. I have attempted to defend both.

Your most recent argument goes like this: Everyone can see that I'm right and you're wrong. :eyes:

[bigtree]

108. Sen. Kerry, in his own words:

"He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator." 01/28/2003 Response to President Bush's State of the Union http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003144&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


"I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."
03/14/2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003617&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism—it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands—it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. 01/23/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003082&keyword=&phrase=&contain=




"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

Not an empty suit:

John Kerry

· Vietnam War hero: Volunteered for service in Vietnam and received the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. Son of an American diplomat.

· Anti-war hero: Founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and was the chief veteran to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at age 27.

· As U.S. senator, he served for 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including investigating the Iran-Contra and BCCI scandals, and chairing the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, which opened full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee and chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations.

· Wrote The New War (1997) on national security issues of the 21st century and unjust wars, and has made numerous trips over the past 20 years to discuss international issues with world leaders, including at the United Nations and in the Middle East.

[bigtree]

110. More from John Kerry

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070



The Massachusetts senator has stood by his vote last fall for the Iraq resolution in the face of criticism from anti-war Democrats and rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who opposed the U.S.-led war. Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote "based on the information that we were given."

"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."

Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,"' Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/21/national1525EDT0608.DTL

[edzontar]

116. THANKS for reminding us of Sen, Byrd's heroic stand

AGAINST the blank-check Bushwar resolution that Kerry, in his worst moment of his entire career, supported, apparently for strictly politcal reasons.

Hell, even Lieberman deserves more respect on this issue than Kerry does--at least he voted his CONSCIENCE--however rotten that conscience might in fact be,

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Yet another attempted rationalization for Kerry's support of bush's war.

And, just as pathetic as the previous ones.

[Jacobin]

41. But you have to admit, they're getting so good at it, it almost seems

that they believe it themselves!!!

[bigtree]

52. It's not true to say Sen. Kerry supported the war

He never said he did. You cannot prove that he supported Bush's unilateral, preemptive invasion in statements or actions so you go back to his vote on the IWR. The authority to commit our forces didn't originate with that bill. Bush had all of the authority he needed to commit our forces as did decades of presidents before him who exercised that authority without congressional approval.

Nothing in the IWR mandated, counseled, or required Bush to proceed to invade Iraq. Indeed, the legislation attempted to place restrictions on his conduct. Unfortunately, he disregarded that and proceeded to invade.

[Iverson]

55. Imagine the shock!

"Nothing in the IWR mandated, counseled, or required Bush to proceed to invade Iraq. Indeed, the legislation attempted to place restrictions on his conduct. Unfortunately, he disregarded that and proceeded to invade."

Nobody in the entire world guess that that might have happened!!!


Wait a second...

Ah, yes. Everybody knew it would happen.

[bigtree]

64. Most Americans supported the actions of Congress in voting for the IWR

at the time. The Democratic additions to that final IWR bill were attempts to reign Bush in by forcing him back to the U.N. They didn't intend for Bush to shun the U.N. and invade. We should expect the president of the United States to tell the truth and honor the will of Congress. But he didn't.

Bush is the shock.

[Iverson]

66. various weaknesses

Most Americans may have supported giving Bush a blank check to wage war, but that does not make it the right thing to do.

To be shocked that Bush violated international law and the UN Charter is to have paid no attention to the evidence before us.

To expect Bush to tell the truth, considering everything, is just amazing and defies further comment.

[bigtree]

68. The IWR was no "blank check"

Sounds good, but untrue. The authority to commit forces didn't originate with that bill. Nothing in it gives cover for Bush's invasion. His actions were decided and enacted outside of the IWR. You must note that he uses 1441 as his justification. Not the IWR.

[Iverson]

69. There's an old saying.

"The fool and the wise man don't see the same tree."

[bigtree]

76. Ah God!

The petty fools of rhyme
That shriek and sweat in pigmy wars
Before the stony face of Time,
And look’d at by the silent stars;

Who hate each other for a song,
And do their little best to bite
And pinch their brethren in the throng,
And scratch the very dead for spite;

And strain to make an inch of room
For their sweet selves, and cannot hear
The sullen Lethe rolling doom
On them and theirs and all things here;

When one small touch of Charity
Could lift them nearer Godlike state
Than if the crowded Orb should cry
Like those who cried Diana great.

And I too talk, and lose the touch
I talk of. Surely, after all,
The noblest answer unto such
Is perfect stillness when they brawl.

-Tennyson

[edzontar]

117. Put your finger up to the wind...

If "most Amercians" supprt something,I guess it must be right...

Segregation.

Killing the Indians.

Slavery (for a while).

Internment of Japanese Americans.

Trying minors as adults.

The death penalty.

Don't bother yourself with moral considerations.

Just check the polls and the advice of your powerful freinds and backers.

Then send people to die for nothing.

Great.

[bigtree]

119. My purpose in stating this was a response to the assertion that 'everyone'

knew Bush would lie and subvert the will of Congress in this.

I never made the insinuation that you assert.

[Emillereid]

38. Kerry's IWR vote was an abdication of responsibility

I agree it was not a pro-war vote -- at least not explicitly. If he had not been running for President and afraid that the prevailing winds might not be behind a negative vote, he might have had the guts to stand up to Bushit. That's the only explanation I can figure for his vote to give Bush power to preemptively wage an illegal and immoral war. And if he didn't mean the vote as a pro-war vote -- where was his voice and his backbone last March when it became abundantly clear how Bushit was making an end-run around the international community to go to war. Kerry can't have it both ways. If he wants the anti-war democrats, he needs to do something to earn our hearts and our respect -- and not play silly word games about his vote on IWR wasn't what it was.

I think it was criminal negligence to have given this idiot warmonger president the wherewithal to wage war. While Hussein was a bad guy who had killed many of his people, it did not make it right to take him out by killing and maiming tens of thousands more Iraqis, destroying their country and culture, etc. This after we had led the sanctions that killed millions. We were not in a moral or legal position to go after Hussein. Besides -- the end do not justify the means.

W are supposedly a nation built upon the rule of law and as such we do not wage preventive war for which there is no imminent threat -- we are a better people than that!

[bigtree]

67. The only one who was certainly running for president was Gov. Dean

It's easier to label his anti-war position as craven, considering his stated support for a similar bill which would have give similar guidance to Bush on Iraq. Bush disregarded all of the restraint counseled in the legislation. He would have likely disregarded the restraint intended in the alternative supported by Gov. Dean. If that legislation had passed Bush could still have committed our forces and proceeded to war. If the alternative had passed and Bush had proceeded to war, would Dean be culpable. That's the question. What would have been different if the alternative that Gov. Dean supported had become law and then been disregarded by Bush? The governor would be no more complicit in the Bush's abuse of authority than Congress. The 'Blame The Democrats First' strategy will backfire. Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed foward with unilateral. preemptive war.

[gulliver]

44. As Kerry says, Bush "f***ed it up." But Kerry did too.

Kerry could have kicked the tires on the IWR a lot harder than he did. Same with Gephardt. Kucinich and especially Pelosi did the right thing.

When Daschle forced Bush to go to the United Nations, I thought they had curbed him, but the did not check Bush on the rebound. Bush is to blame for stampeding the country to war, but Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards could have done more to slow it down or try to stop it.

Voting for IWR was not wrong per se. But "buying IWR" from Bush shows a lack of judgement.

Kerry was conned.

[killbotfactory]

47. Kerry supported the damn war, even after IWR

He even takes responsibility for making the US safer since we caught Saddam.

This kind of fence-straddling, finger-in-the-wind having lack of political courage, along with his pissing on people who don't think the war was such a great thing, is what's going to kill us in the general election.

[WiseMen]

50. Please check the record. Kerry has been consistent.

Kerry opposed war, before the Vote, during the Vote, and after the vote. For many in congress the IWR vote brought Bush back from the brink of war into a U.N. process. John’s position was no different than that of the French, German, Syrian …. Ambassadors who voted for resolution 1441, but opposed Bush’s rush to war.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the IWR vote
TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
…..

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.

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

After the IWR vote, During U.N. Inspections
Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003
"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

………

And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.

Mr. President, do not rush to war!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm


After the war started:

April 4, 2003
''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/04.html

April 7, 2003
(AP) Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

Bush sidestepped process on war in Iraq, Kerry says


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (July, 22, 2003)


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030721-103628-1890r.htm

[Jacobin]

51. I'm having trouble understanding the statement he made today

that his IWR vote was the right thing to do.

Without turning yourself into a pretzel, how does this statement square with the other parts of the puzzle put together at the head of this thread?

[bigtree]

56. I've listened to him on this

He feels that it was right to vote to hold Saddam accountable. He feels that Bush disregarded the intent of the legislation and recklessly pushed foward to war.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

65. He takes credit for the good stuff...

And blames Bush for the bad...

Capture Saddam? "This validates my vote! Hooray for me!"
Another soldier dies? "Bush fucked up! Boo Bush!"

[bigtree]

71. That's what Gov. Dean does

Praised the capture of Saddam. Uses the bogus terror alert to bolster his case that we're no safer for his capture.

Supports the removal of Hussein.

Doesn't outline how.

Takes his cards and stomps off when a similar resolution he supported fails. Didn't have to vote. Just criticize and wait for the campaign to start and stick it to those who did have to vote.

Catbird seat.

[killbotfactory]

79. He stood up to Bush and the media machine, and was savaged by it

But he still stuck to his guns that the invasion was wrong.

I'm sorry Kerry pussed out on the issue, but I guess it's paying off for him.

[bigtree]

82. I could guess that Gov. Dean was just as calculating in his opposition

but I won't. :eyes:

[bigtree]

70. More of a twist to brand the Democrats for Bush's sins

No Democrat, save Zell Miller, supported what Bush did. All of your cursing can't make that so. The consequences were the re-introduction of inspectors - a result of the threat of force implied in the resolution - and a possibility that Hans Blix could ratchet this thing down. Saddam is the only adversary that I can recall who actually destroyed missiles to forstall war. The restraint implied in the resolution was disregarded by Bush. No Democrat advocated immediate war.

Bush is the #*x* that took us to war.

[Jacobin]

74. Ah yes, Helpless Kerry, a mere Senator,

could only vote for giving a known psychopath the keys to the war machine, had no choice.

You can believe what you want to. I'm too old to listen to this type of twaddle.

[bigtree]

77. He already had the keys.

Provisions in the IWR intended to reign him in. Almost worked.

BTW, would Gov. Dean be culpable for the unilateral actions of Bush if the alternative he supported would have passed? Are you arguing that that alternative would have stopped Bush even though he completely disregarded the will of Congress in his arbitrary invasion?

You portray Bush as an out of control madman but you expect that Congress could have reigned him in. It doesn't make sense to foist the sins of Bush onto the Democrats. I imagine that he would be fine with that tactic.

Bush: Kerry told me to go to war. Good luck with that.

[WiseMen]

83. This is the worst of campaign: making IWR a wedge issue

[edzontar]

118. I haven't posted on it lately. But since YOU brought it up....

You reminded me, again, of why I turned away from JFK to Dean.

Moral and blood issues.

[quaker bill]

54. It was simply the wrong policy.

It was based on lies combined with shallow and transparent manipulation. The facts are on the ground. There were no weapons or any capability to deliver them.

To the extent he has a lengthy record supporting this type of policy, and I agree with you that he does, it only makes matters worse.

Being wrong loudly, often, for a very long time, and with many friends does not improve things.

I know that we live in an age where "Ignorance is Strength" and "Freedom is Slavery" however, authorizing the dropping of 2000 pound bombs on a civilian population center of 4 million people does not a "Man of Peace" make. You simply can't get to there from here. Too many wrongly dead people are in your way.

[bigtree]

58. This is Bush's fault

Nothing in the bill he voted for made Bush do what he did. Nothing in the bill mandated unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation,as Sen Kerry said, before, after, and up to and after the invasion.

[Jacobin]

61. Yeah, Congress can't be expected to do anything. They are only the

legislative branch empowered to declare war.

They all thought Smirky was reasonable, responsible, level headed, smart and was guided by wise people who weren't out to invade Iraq for no good reason.

Gee, who could fault him?

/sarcasm

[bigtree]

73. There was little support in Congress for requiring Bush to adhere

to the War Powers Act. Wish there was, but there wasn't. The only restraint that could be agreed to in the republican-controlled Congress was the IWR. Sen. Kerry voted to hold Saddam accountable, to force Bush back to the U.N., and to restoire the inspection regime, which would have further forstalled war. His every action was to forstall war. His every action was to hold Saddam accountable. His every action was to prevent unilateral, preemptive invasion.

Too bad Bush lied and pushed us to invade.

[Jacobin]

75. Actually, there were over one hundred congresscritters who voted

against.

If kerry is supposed to be a leader, why couldn't he have taken that 100 plus and added to it?

Because he thought he was screwing up his presidential bid.

[quaker bill]

63. Sorry, no one gets off that lightly.

You are correct, Kerry did not make Bush* do it. However he approved the resolution that made it seem more legitimate.

[bigtree]

72. Yeah, more legitmate

What counsel did Bush ignore? The council in the legislation he supported and signed. The resolution puts Bush outside of even the legislation that he agreed to. Nothing in the legislation calls for or advocates immediate war. The legislation represented the only official restraint outside of the will of the U.N.

[WiseMen]

78. So, What about the Massive Bombing of Afghanistan That Dean, Clark etc

Supported. Do you approve of that. I don't. But I don't see why
you are letting Bush off the hook for Iraq. He went against the intent of the IWR, he went against the UN. He use deception and trickery to pursue his goals.

Stop blaming ourselves. Kerry is OUR man.

[genius]

84. The Biden-Lugar Res Dean backed was more pro-war

THe only truly anti-war candidates are Kucinich and Sharpton. But I'm impressed with Kerry's and Edwards's desions to vote with Kucinich against the $87 billion.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Why Kerry when I have Wes Clark?

Unlike Kerry's continued support for PATRIOT Act, Wes Clark said today that he wanted PATRIOT repealed because we did not need it.

Kerry is a miserable failure. He failed on the war, and he failed in protecting our civil liberties when he voted for PATRIOT.

No one put a gun to Kerry's head and told him to vote "Yes" on IWR and PATRIOT. Kerry ignored millions of people that marched for peace across the world. Kerry chose to follow the advice from the DLC, conceding national security issue to Bush. Now Kerry must pay, and he must pay dearly for his transgressions.

I rather see Kerry defeated for the nomination than to go to the polls in November, vote for his sorry ass, and then see Kerry drag this party down to defeat!

[AnnitaR]

86. I just wanted to say that your posts have been

spot on regarding Kerry! Thanks for being the voice of reason here!

Okay, so I know you prob could care less what I think, but I thought I'd let you know I've enjoyed reading your posts tonight!

[IndianaGreen]

87. Well, I do care what you think, and thanks!

I was very doubtful about Clark when he first announced. Over time, Clark has proven himself a formidable candidate. I think that if people were to listen to what he has to say, they will come convinced, as I have, that Clark believes strongly in Constitutional government and the rule of law. This is why Clark can say that Bush has put our civil liberties in peril at home, and put our security at risk abroad.

Anyhoo, glad to make your acquaintance!

[bigtree]

96. Gen. Clark has no problem with Sen. Kerry's IWR vote

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43

[lyonn]

112. Me too Annita

It's the bottom line

[Guaranteed]

95. I agree

If Dean ever bows out, if I drag myself to the polls I'd have to go with Clark.

[Loren645]

90. Well, I guess if we can have perpetual war for perpetual peace

Then Kerry, who voted for the Iraq war claiming to "trust"
the man who had stolen the white house, can be anointed
a "ManOfPeace."

We do live in Orwellian times.

[bigtree]

94. Claiming trust

you have trust in quotes. I thought it was Gov. Dean who said that he trusted the president in this.

Orwell would be facinated by the twisting of Sen. Kerry's words and actions by his opponents on this issue of the IWR.

Now some would have us believe that Sen. Kerry is a warmonger. They would have us believe that the liberal senator from Massachusets who is vigorously defended and supported by the duke of the party, Ted Kennedy, is a warmonger.

I always thought this was odd: Kennedy, who voted against the IWR supports Kerry, who voted for it.

But Tom Harkin, who voted for the IWR, is for Dean.

Kinda makes all of this vitriol over who voted for the IWR silly. Dean doesn't present Harkin as a warmonger because of his vote. Kennedy doesn't present Kerry as a warmonger because of his IWR vote. Clark doesn't bash Kerry for his vote.

Only on DU do we ignore these anomalies in our debate. We push on. Water's deep, but we push on.

[wadestock]

98. Best possible excuse but......

This is Kerry's best line in my opinion...

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

.....but still unacceptable in my opinion because they should have sensed and clearly anticipated that Bush intended to go to war. Any and all excuses leveraging the theory "well it was just to give him the power to go if it was really necessary" is simply a bunch of crap.

Any Dem voting yes at that point was a grave error....born out now by history. It should have been debated to death as it was the first time around....in fact MORE....considering the ever apparent notion that junior was going to finish Daddy's business.

That willingness to debate it out will cost this country in excess of 1 Trillion dollars and 1000 lives by the time it's all over.

[mvd]

100. IWR votes do mean at least something to me..

and that's why I'm still supporting Kucinich and Dean. But Kerry was lied to, and he didn't endorse going about it the way Bush did. And you're right - his goal was to be in a stronger position to beat Bush. It's just sad that so much death and destruction has happened in the meantime. In conclusion, I can support Kerry if he becomes the nominee.

[Forkboy]

104. pure bs

[Raya]

120. Not sure I understand this analysis

[goobergunch]

111. I have to go with the text of the resolution

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

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

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR:

[bigtree]

113. My analysis of the IWR

"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Doesn't this mean imminent threat? Didn't Bush exceed this authority?

____________________________________________________________________

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.

Isn't this stating that the authority is inherent in the old War Powers Resolution which presidents have gone around for decades. The authority is not inherent in the new resolution, the president already has that authority through the loopholes of the War Powers Act to commit forces. That is what this specific statutory authorization is stating, I believe. Hence:

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

___________________________________________________________________

Authority to proceed is granted by Congress under this legislation. (Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces) Authority is granted, effective with a:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070


All efforts to stifle Bush's manufactured mandate to conquer were rejected by the president and his Bush league. Bush pushed past the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community and invaded.