Kerry on CNN: "It was the right thing to do, to stand up to Saddam

[Guaranteed]

Hussein, but he <Bush> has done it in the wrong way."

What do you all think of that statement?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Kerry sounds just like Bush

well, except for the tepid little "he has done it the wrong way". I guess that's why Kerry voted for the War Against Iraq and the PATRIOT Act - he agrees with Bush on attacking Iraq and curtailing our civil liberties.

Wow, some leadership there Kerry - what next, a white wash of the Bush clan's crimes? Oh wait, nevermind, you already did that!

[Guaranteed]

4. People will see Kerry's lack of leadership

and, frankly, his political impotence on this issue, more and more, the longer he stays in the spotlight.

[paulk]

27. Quite frankly,

you don't know what you're talking about.

Go back to 1998 and rewiew the Clinton/Gore strategy toward Iraq - and you will find it's pretty much the same as Kerrys'.

Instead of the generic smear campaign you've been waging, try to put the IWR in historic context.

[Guaranteed]

38. I know

EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I know that there are over 500 dead Americans in Iraq, and that we have, like Kerry said, spent $200B on the war. We've alienated our allies and we have no real idea how we're getting out of there. John Kerry's vote authorized all of that.

Where am I stating a falsehood?

[Jacobin]

50. Some people don't like to think about all that

and some have gotten really good at attempting to explain it away. Those explanations don't wash with me and it seems that he states a new and contradictory, or at least confusing, statement on Iraq every day.

That, I don't like at all.

[Guaranteed]

68. As long as he's vague

it gives him plenty of room to move. And, it also gives the people that listen to him the opportunity to interpret what he's saying in a way that most appeals to them. Even people that were FOR the war can say, "Hey, John Kerry thinks it was right to stand up to Saddam Hussein!"

The less he says, the better he does.

[bigtree]

52. My analysis of the IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=157220#165967

The authority to commit forces did not originate in the legislation. Indeed, the president already had the same authority thriugh a loophole in the War Powers Act (which the bill referenced) that decades of presidents had used to commit forces without congressional approval.

He could deploy them for up to 60 days without approval. After they are in the field it is unlikely that Congress would then revoke that authority and withdraw them. So, the president, I believe, would have committed forces with or without the resolution which attempted to reign him in.

[Guaranteed]

Not this again. This is totally irrelevant.

If Bush had authorization, why did he even bother going to Congress?

For whatever reason Bush went to Congress, Kerry voted for the IWR.

[bigtree]

85. For cover

Which is what the nonsense that the resolution gave him the authority for unilateral, preemptive invasion does. Give him cover.

The president could have used the authority in the loopholes in the War Powers Act that give him the option of deploying forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. The Bill actually references that and states that no provision in the bill is intended to modify the Act. No Congress is likely to withdraw support from the president after forces are deployed.

The IWR was an attempt, by some Democrats, to reign Bush in and send him back to the U.N. Bush disregarded the restraint implicit in the resolution and rushed to war. Bush bears the responsibility, not Congress.

[Guaranteed]

125. Some would say it was BUSH that was buying time so that he could build

up the troops in Kuwait. That was what the IWR and going to UN was all about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Exactly. Clinton went to war in the Balkans without Congressional approval

Clinton didn't need it and Bush didn't need it.

[emulatorloo]

106. Because you are quoting out of context (EOM)

[Guaranteed]

126. That's his position. He says it all the time.

Even a Kerry supporter said "So what's new?" down below.

[shivaji]

111. False on following counts:

Which of the 33 countries which are participating in Iraq
have we alienated? As for the Germans, French & Russians,
which are the ONLY 3 who seriously opposed removing Saddam
by force, ALL HAD HUGE BUSINESS DEALS WITH SADDAM. Saddam
owed them millions for projects done in Iraq.

Did you observe how they all wagged their tails when James
Baker dangled their possible inclusion in future Iraq
reconstruction contracts?

I think Joe & JFK have it exactly right.

[Guaranteed]

127. Joe has it right? You're defending the war?

Alright.

[paulk]

118. The falsehood

is when you blame John Kerry for what GW Bush has done. Kerry's vote was conditional, as was clearly laid out in his IWR speech. Bush not only violated Kerry's conditions, he violated the IWR itself.

You imply that Kerry is responsible for the American dead in Iraq. This is nonsense, and best serves to reveal your true motives; to smear Kerry at all costs.

[Guaranteed]

131. The IWR gave the symbolic support of Congress to invade Iraq alone.

That was the point of passing the IWR before going to the UN. It was supposed to pressure other countries to join up and pressure Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back in. The Senate gave the go-ahead- and then, lo and behold, Bush went ahead. And we were all so surprised. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

143. Exactly! Kerry is anti-gun and anti death penalty...

While I understand that these are generally accepted Democratic principles, they won't win him any red states. He's not even nuanced about his stances.

I like Kerry, but I can see Bush/Dukakis all over again, and so can the GOP.

[blm]

16. Can you provide a link for that claim?

The fact is that Kerry investigated and exposed BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning. He worked for years on it despite many pressuring him to stop.

In fact, did it ever occur to you, WCTV, that almost EVERYTHING you know about the bFEE is thanks to Kerry's work?

Are you blaming Kerry that his investigations went to an Independent Counsel? Are you angry with Kerry that Bush1 PARDONED so many exposed in Kerry's investigations?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. Where was Kerry when Gary Webb was being attacked?

Kerry didn't say a word. I wonder - what did Kerry say after Bush stole the election? When the Congressional Black Caucus was asking for Democrats help in demanding a recount, what did Kerry do?

[Guaranteed]

138. TRANSCRIPT (with link and quote)

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html

BEGALA: He never showed up. It's certainly not desertion. But it's certainly not fulfillment of one's obligation. It was your hometown paper. I mean, you must be familiar with

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: Paul, that's not -- that's not the ground I want to fight this campaign on.

And I'm very proud of my service. I'm glad that I got the experience I got. And I'm proud of the friendships I have from it. But a lot of us decided many years ago not to make the other choices people made an issue. It was a very complicated time. It was a very difficult time. What I want to talk about now is the future, how we bring the country together over a war that has been bum-rushed at the American people.

Their -- the president did not do, I think, the diplomacy that the United States of America deserves, that the world deserves, before you take a nation to war. There's no graver decision that a president makes. And when the international community is sending you every signal in the world, slow down, let's do this in a responsible way, a president ought to listen. This president didn't.

And now the American people are over $200 billion out of pocket. Our American soldiers are more exposed than they ought to be, because they are not sharing the risk. It's the wrong way to take a nation to war. It was the right thing to do to stand up to Saddam Hussein, but he's done it in the wrong way.

[underpants]

2. I don't agree with it but it will work for him

It will work in the general election too....IF he gets the nomination.

[wryter2000]

3. Depends

Depends on what he means by "stand up to." And his reasons for wanting to stand up to him.

[Gin]

18. You would think that a man who has seen the horrors of war....and then

found out it didnt have to happen... would not vote yes to invade Iraq. Didn't he learn anything from the Viet Nam experience?

The Iraq invasion is my main issue...because of that action we heve lost 500+ young soldiers needlessly, are deeply in debt...have no freinds around the world...and shrub has set a dangerous precedent for years to come.

Many things are going badly in this country but that one issue can get us blown up....while we are slipping into 3rd world status.

[dreissig]

29. Horrors of War

Kerry was in Vietnam only three months, which is substantially less than a full tour. Maybe he saw the horrors of war in that short time, maybe he didn't. Whatever his experience, it didn't deter him from voting against an unnecessary war against a country that did not threaten us.

[KC21304]

59. Ask the man he saved. Maybe it was just a nice cruise on the river.

[TexasSissy]

5. Wish he'd have said that way back when. But I'd still vote for him

if he wins the nomination. Better n'Bush.

But I'm supporting Clark, the "one most likely."

[montanacowboy]

6. Just Kerry returning to the center

now that he "thinks" he has Dean down. He only retracted his war stance because of Dean pushing him on it, now that he thinks he is in the catbird's seat, he's back to waving the flag and telling us he was right to vote for the war.

Anyone who is thinking of voting for this guy had better take a damn good hard look. He will never beat Bush because he is just like Bush. Sorry to step on the toes of the Kerry supporters, but now we will see the Centrist appear and the base be damned.

Here we go again Dems - another losing season.

[bigtree]

53. Dean has been in the catbird seat

Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones, Knowing all the while that he would not have to vote on any of these issues. If he had any dignity he would'nt be sticking it to those who were tasked with the responsibility of crafting and actually voting for these bills.

[dreissig]

73. Kerry Burned Us

We looked to John Kerry for support in our struggle against an immoral and illegal war. But instead of showing solidarity with us, Kerry voted for the invasion. A guy like that doesn't deserve to be the standard bearer for our party in the next election.

BTW, Kerry is still saying he did the right thing. He has not lost any sleep over the thousands of lives the war has cost.

[bigtree]

76. Saying that he voted for invasion doesn't make it true

It just lets Bush hide behind Congress in his unilateral, preemptive invasion that the resolution mandated against. Read the resolution.

[dreissig]

65. Now You See It, Now You Don't

Kerry has an odd relationship with the clear and apparent meaning of the things he says. Later on, if they haven't turned out well, he'll tell you that they meant something else besides what you thought they mean. Kerry threw back his Vietnam medals, but later discovered they were important to his career. Oops! Turns out he didn't throw back his medals, he threw back his buddy's medals, get it? And he didn't really give Bush authority to do whatever he wanted to do to Iraq, he gave Bush approval to stand up to Saddam.

You'll never get Kerry to admit anything. There's no reason to vote for a guy like that.

[displacedtexan]

7. Nothing new about the statement, but your headline is specious.

What a set up!

[mitchum]

15. Nothing new about the specious nature of the headline either

[Karmadillo]

8. Without context, it's difficult to tell.

Perhaps someone will post the transcript when it becomes available.

[Guaranteed]

13. That's exactly what he said and meant. nt

[Karmadillo]

26. Without context, it's difficult to tell.

Perhaps someone will post the transcript when it becomes available.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Invading Iraq was wrong, standing up to Saddam was right.

Forcing Saddam to let the inspectors back in was right. Kicking the inspectors out so we could launch our attack was wrong.

Going to the UN and getting a tough Security Council resolution backed up by the threat of force was right. Ignoring the fact that Iraq then cooperated and invading was wrong.

[Guaranteed]

22. He's being deliberately vague.

You're right...that statement can be interpreted in so many different ways.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. There is some deliberate obscuring of the truth going on, but not by Kerry

The media has been trying to spread this meme for a year, but clearly, the people of Iowa didn't buy it. Maybe those farm folk just know bullshit when they see it.

Iowa results:
Among voters who 'somewhat disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 14% of the vote.
Among voters who 'strongly disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 29% of the vote.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

[KC21304]

56. Did you see him on Crossfire ?

If you did you would know that he was not vague about anything. There is only one way to interpret what he said. That is if you want to tell the truth.

[Democrats unite]

33. I agree with you 100%

eom

[Renew Deal]

In that simple context, He's right.

You can't really argue with that. I wonder what surrounds it.

[Guaranteed]

14. That's his POSITION.

Are you going to argue that that's NOT Kerry's position?

On edit: Or, are you saying that his position is vague? That's what he says over and over. "It was good to stand up to Saddam..."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. You - an opponent of Kerry, are not qualifed to define his position.

Especially if you attempt to do it by selectively quoting 12 words of an interview.

[Jacobin]

17. Let me understand

Apparently, you favored the invasion. Some on DU did and still do.

Does this mean Kerry is the Pro-Invasion candidate? Or is he both things to both camps?

[Renew Deal]

32. huh?

I am not saying I favored the invasion? Show me how and where I said that. I am saying that he is right, we would be correct to stand up to Saddam, but that is a very vague statement. But there was no justification for the invasion amongst other things.

[Jacobin]

42. I'm still not clear

IF Kerry said it was "right to stand up to Saddam" the only interpretation I have about that is that the recent activity to "stand up" to him was invading this country. If the recent activity was "right" it leads me to believe he's glad we invaded.

Sounds to me like he supported the invasion. I was just curious as to whether you agreed. Lots of people do and did. Just asking the question.

It's looking more and more like a Kerry statement to appeal to those who favored the invasion and those who didn't. Typical polital claptrap that means nothing.

Didn't mean to be accusatory, and sorry if I appeared that way

[emulatorloo]

96. Kerry did not favor the invasion! WAR AS LAST RESORT

War as a last resort, after getting inspectors in, getting UN etc etc failed. War as a **Last Resort** and then only if multilateral, and only if Saddam was truly and imminent threat.

War as a Last Resort.

Why is this unreasonalble or evil, given what the Senate was being told in Top Secret Briefings that SH had WMDs and on verge or had nuclear weapons?

[Jacobin]

104. It's convenient for him to take that position

The resolution enabled the invasion. If Kerry "trusted" bush when the entire world knew to a moral certainty that smirk was going to war no matter what, then he is naive, which is not a good trait in a president. If he was not naive, then he knew bush was going to invade and supported it.

Keep in mind that over one hundred congresscritters found the gumption to vote against the resolution.

Kerry did not find the cajones to do so. He thought it would hurt his election chances in 2004.

Well, it has. But it backfired on him and now he's waffling back and forth on the issue.

I find that very troublesome. He refuses to take a stand. He blows with the wind and the polls.

[htuttle]

10. I think he's framing his answer wrong

Saddam turned out to be almost no threat to the US whatsoever. By framing Bush's illegal invasion as 'Standing up to Saddam', Kerry gives the impression that Saddam was worth standing up to in the first place, ie., a person's strength is judged by who their enemies are and how they react. By making out Saddam to be a big dangerous enemy that needed to be stood up to, Kerry treads perilously close toward validating Bush's assessement of Iraq.

If Kerry framed his opinion in terms of 'Bush lied to us, and exagerrated the threat from Iraq', then he'd be a lot better off, in my opinion.

(ps. I'm ABB all the way. I don't honestly care if ham sandwich gets nominated by the Democrats -- I'd still vote for it).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Well, you are assuming he didn't say those things.

I bet he did, but the thread starter only quoted these 12 words, for, well, obvious reasons.

[sandnsea]

21. General Wesley Clark said he was

In his own testimony in Sept 2002. Everybody said Saddam was a threat and had to be disarmed. Do people just close their eyes when they read those parts of people's statements. Aaaagghhh!!!!!

[Nazgul35]

88. So answer me this....

back when Sadam invaded Iraq, a far more serious situation than we had a year ago in October.....Bush senior had gone to the UN, gotten a security council resolution authorizing force, gotten troops from many different nations, than came to the Congress of the United States asking for the authorization to use force....

Kerry stood up in the Senate and voted NO

Fast forward to October 2002, Bush junior had scanty evidence, no UN no security council, no foreign troops......

Kerry stood up in the Senate and voted YES

Please explain to me:

1) Why he was right to vote no for the GWR...
2) Why he was right to vote Yes for the IWR...
3) How is this nothing more than opportunism...

You see, one of the things different between the two votes was that the GWR came after the elections, but the IWR came before.....seems like Mr. Kerry knows how to decide when he knows he's going to have to face the voters....

The Same Sen. Kerry was part of a body that just recently allowed an omnibus spending bill go through the Senate that had

1) the over time rules attached...
2) that will destroy FBI gun aplications after 24 hours....

and god knows what else....

Real leadership from the Dems we are use to seeing in Washington! The more things change the more they stay the same!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. I opposed the war but.....

Saddam has a history and we had to keep an eye on him, and yes, he deseves the horrible fate that awaits him. The war was wrong. It was the wrong place for us to be. We should go after those who pose a DIRECT threat to our safety. Unfortunatly, Iraq is a mess and it is our problem now.

[Jacobin]

12. Anybody got some syrup to go with that waffle?

Geeze, I'm trying, I'm really fricking trying to convince myself to get behind this guy, as he currently appears to be the front runner and someone I'll be forced to vote for.....but damn this guy makes it difficult.

Fer cryin out loud Kerry, please make up your mind.

[buff2]

41. I don't think I have the stomach to

vote for Kerry if he wins the nomination. He was a "yes man" for bu$h for too long. I just can't forget about that. Voting for the war,the patriot act and the blank check for Iraq....No....that's too much to overlook.

[Jacobin]

45. I know what you mean. I really really really do

This guy is just smearing smarmy stuff all over to appeal to those who like soundbites that are comforting.

He voted for the war for political reasons. What the heck will he do in the WH for political reasons. We really need someone with principles to do what he thinks is right.

He is really freaking me out with this having it both ways thing.

At some point, he is going to alienate EVERYONE if he keeps trying to please everyone

[cthrumatrix]

86. he will need to work on this....against bush

[sandnsea]

19. That is exactly where America is at

And his position has been consistent on this from day one. There is a way to do it and it has to be done correctly. Bush didn't.

[Guaranteed]

28. To do what? Can we be more specific?

What does "stand up to Saddam" mean? And why should we "stand up to him"?

[sandnsea]

31. Ask Wesley Clark

Read his Sept 2002 testimony to Congress. Then get back to me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Give me a break

You say:

' What does "stand up to Saddam" mean? And why should we "stand up to him"? '


Your professed ignorance on these questions is unconvincing.

[Guaranteed]

44. I'm waiting for the transcript

so we can see if Kerry actually says anything more substantial than that.

[sandnsea]

51. You didn't see the show??

You need a transcript?? You're commenting when you don't even know what happened?? :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

60. No, I watched it

I'm waiting for the transcript so I can show how vague he's being.

[w13rd0]

64. Kerry's middle name is Nuance...

...but that aside, being a Senator, he's quite accustomed to that kind of...positioning...

[Native]

142. There's a lot of that going on in this thread, isn't there?

How can you handle debating this nonsense with people who are completely uninformed? I don't know how you all do it, but I am impressed and appreciate your efforts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Weasle words.

Still trying to paper over his rollover for the Goober-in-Chief.

[Cocoa]

25. I think it's the same thing he's been saying

and I'm wondering where you've been if you haven't incorporated Kerry's views on Iraq yet.

[Guaranteed]

47. No, I know that's what he's been saying. Like I said, it's his position.

I'm bringing it up again because it pisses me off.

[mitchum]

34. Hey, what are the latest New Hampshire figures?

I've been away all day and need to catch up

[HuckleB]

40. There are no polls taken since the debate, or since Dean's TV appearance.

So what's out there is basically meaningless.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Keep believing that.

Maybe self-hypnosis would work:
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.
It all turned around yesterday.

[HuckleB]

54. Whatever.

My point is valid. Any Kerry supporter who is honest knows that things can change fast, that there are many undecideds and that few decideds are unwilling to change their vote. Further, as the week goes on, what happened Monday has lost its power.

Dean might not make a comeback, but to believe that yesterday won't change the numbers is to believe that change doesn't happen.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. You said:

"what's out there is basically meaningless"

and if you want to believe that, go ahead. I had arguments with Dean supporters before Iowa who were trying to say that Dean's declining poll numbers meant his support was rising. Now, the talking point seems to be that 'everything changed on debate day'.

It is absolutely ridiculous of you to say that if I disagree with you, I "believe that change doesn't happen". lol


Yes, I am aware that things change. However, they change in reaction to events. You are welcome to believe that yesterday's events will turn things around for Dean. I don't need to argue the point because about 48 hours after an event, the polls should show the reaction, if any.

So we'll just wait and see.

[mitchum]

78. Oops, there's a new Zogby poll that I just found out about!

And polls are no less meaningless than any of the blather on here (including my own)

[HuckleB]

80. Sorry, but...

from the flamebait post you offered, my assertion is hardly ridiculous. You are clearly generalizing your individual experiences. That, too, is ridiculous. Give it a rest. My point stands, as you have now acknowledged.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[HuckleB]

87. Please make up your mind.

You disagree, then you agree, now you disagree. Well, which one is it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. No matter how many times you say I agree with you, I don't.

I don't agree with you at all. You are absolutely wrong in your analysis. Your predictions will turn out to be inaccurate. Your assessment of yesterday's events is a case of wishful thinking.

Clear enough for you? lol

[HuckleB]

95. So you say now.

It's not what you said before. And I never made any predictions. I guess you prefer arguing with a phantom. That's interesting. I'll go find you another phantom now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. I don't know why

you keep repeating what anyone reading this thread can see is false.

oh, and by the way:

Iowa results:
Among voters that describe themselves as 'liberal', Kerry received 33% of the vote, Dean received 24% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'Democrats', Kerry received 36% of the vote, Dean received 20% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'Strong Democrats', Kerry received 35% of the vote, Dean received 22% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'Independents', Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 21% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'union households', Kerry received 29% of the vote, Dean received 19% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'college graduates', Kerry received 33% of the vote, Dean received 24% of the vote.
Among voters that describe themselves as 'internet users', Kerry received 33% of the vote, Dean received 24% of the vote.
Among voters who 'somewhat disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 14% of the vote.
Among voters who 'strongly disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 29% of the vote.
Among first-time caucus goers, Kerry received 35% of the vote, Dean received 19% of the vote.
Among voters aged 17-29, Kerry received 35% of the vote, Dean received 25% of the vote.
Among voters aged 65+ (the group that votes the most), Kerry received 43% of the vote, Dean received 15% of the vote.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html



Your candidate is a loser. Not in my opinion, in reality.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. I think that statement

SUCKS! We should NEVER have started an illegal, pre-emptive war in Iraq! :grr: I can't believe he says this after we KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION LIED TO US ABOUT IT! OMG. *sigh*

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Well if Kerry had made the statement that you are so mad about

it would be different.

"We should NEVER have started an illegal, pre-emptive war in Iraq!"


Of course Kerry didn't say that, did he?

Invading Iraq was wrong, standing up to Saddam was right.

Forcing Saddam to let the inspectors back in was right. Kicking the inspectors out so we could launch our attack was wrong.

Going to the UN and getting a tough Security Council resolution backed up by the threat of force was right. Ignoring the fact that Iraq then cooperated and invading was wrong.

[Guaranteed]

48. Of course...Bush didn't want to "stand up to Saddam." Bush

wanted to invade Iraq. And that's what Kerry authorized him to do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. I'm looking forward to Dean dropping out

so we won't have to go over the same pointless argument over and over. But -- don't let me discourage you from continuing to press this false point, because one thing is for sure, this is a losing argument for Dean, and I hope he rides it into the dustbin of history.


Iowa results:
Among voters who 'somewhat disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 14% of the vote.
Among voters who 'strongly disapprove' of the war in Iraq, Kerry received 34% of the vote, Dean received 29% of the vote.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

[Guaranteed]

70. Hey...just don't forget who authorized the war! nt

[emulatorloo]

93. Bush Authorized the War and Kerry has been consistent from day one.

Bush briefed senate with Top Secret bogus info re WMD and Nuclear Weapons that you and I never saw.

Bush promised that he would work with the international community and UN, that war would be a *****last resort****, and would not be unilateral, and if Saddam was an imminent treat.

It was right to stand up to Saddam. It was not right to lauch a Unilateral Preemptive war.

Bush lied Bush broke promises Bush authorized a unilateral preemptive war.

This is not John Kerry's war.

ON edit add a couple words

[bigtree]

67. These are the sections that hold the requirements that Bush ignored

in his rush to war:

__________________________________________________________________

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.

[Guaranteed]

75. I assume the threat of force would have to have been enough

to allow Bush to invade Iraq. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a threat.

[bigtree]

100. Force was to be applied in concert with the U.N.

and the U.N. wasn't ready to invade.

[Guaranteed]

116. The point of the IWR was supposedly to give Bush enough force to

let the UN know that he was going with or without them, which would pressure them into going.

That is the force that was given to him- deliberately and knowingly. And everyone knew that he was going to abuse the power. It was given to him anyway.

I can't believe with how abandoned we all felt by our leadership in late 2002 and the first half of 2003 that you're now a Kerry supporter. You have a very short memory.

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. Bullshit.

Standing up to Saddam? For what??? WMD? Nope. Yellowcake? Nope. Biological weapons? Nope. Mobile labs? Nope. Nuclear weapons that could be used at any time and we could have a mushroom cloud over us? Nope. That argument is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. You and John Kerry just gave Bush a pass on killing over 500 soldiers and THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi citizens. There was NO reason we needed to "stand up" to Saddam with bombs. The inspectors could have spent YEARS in Iraq. This war was based on LIES. We are hated by most of the world. Noone trusts us anymore and he's alienated our allies. Holy crap.

Invading Iraq was wrong? Standing up to Saddam was right? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Unbelievable.

[bigtree]

72. As I recall

Inspectors were readmitted. We actually had a chance to slow Bush's march down, but he pushed past us all. That is his crime. His alone.

[emulatorloo]

98. Who lied? Bush, not Kerry - Wilson endorsed Kerry!

Kerry was lied to, he didn't lie about yellow cake, WMD, etc. If he lied about it, why is the truthteller, Ambassador Wilson, on Kerry's team?

[Guaranteed]

117. WE ALL KNEW WHAT BUSH WAS DOING.

Don't play this bullshit game.

[Jacobin]

124. Yes. That is the undeniable truth

Spin as he might, there is NO getting out of that one. Period

[sandnsea]

55. That's what he is saying, goddamn

The vote was in October. The war was in March. The whole world was telling Bush to slow down and hold Saddam accountable properly. Not to rush into a unilateral, pre-emptive war. They gave the American people a "bum's rush", misled us and went to war. Good fucking god. I don't understand why people refuse to hear.

[Guaranteed]

77. You knew Bush was going to invade, right?

I did. The rest of DU did. Who thought Bush wasn't going to invade, no matter what?

After all, the only reason Bush wasted all that time at the UN was to give our military a chance to build up in Kuwait. Everyone was saying it. And Bush was saying that whether we had to go alone or not, we were going to "protect US national security."

Kerry knew. We all knew.

[bigtree]

108. That's why Sen. Kerry attempted to slow down the march to war

by steering Bush back to the U.N. Kerry knew, and warned the White House repeatedly. The White House first sought to sanction invasion with the IWR, and made a token effort in the U.N. They later said the hell with them and pushed ahead to war.

Bush never had to come to Congress, but he did so to try to cover for his original plan to invade that he had had before 9-11. Of course everyone knew of his ambitions. But some Democrats in Congress, who saw that the IWR had enough support to pass sought to place restrictions on the presidents actions. Their only influence on the IWR was to seek to modify it or be satisfied with a 'no' vote which had no guarantee of stopping the president from doing anything.

Does anyone really believe that a 'no' vote by Congress would have kept him from committing troops. I don't. Look at the way he justified the invasion as the enforcement of 1441, even though the U.N. was clearly against him.

Don't let him off of the hook by foisting blame on a resolution that was designed to reign him in; one that he completely disregarded in his rush to war.

[Guaranteed]

120. There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone who had a hand in this.

And, yes, a solid opposition from the Senate would have cast serious doubts on Bush's case for war, and could have stopped it. Our leadership FAILED.

[sandnsea]

114. Oh, you're a clairvoyant

No, I didn't know Bush was going to invade. I didn't know the inspectors wouldn't find WMD. I didn't know Bush would lie to the country. I certainly didn't know Colin Powell would lie to the UN and the world. But they did. You can pretend you're smarter than every world leader and WMD specialist, I kind of doubt I am.

[Guaranteed]

119. Are you new to DU or something?

We all knew he was going to invade. Yes- we did. Don't lie.

I don't understand why Kerry supporters are playing dumb about this.

[TLM]

134. I think what they mean is Kerry is short sighted and easy to fool..

Kerry was completely ignorant of Bush's desire to go to war.

All the more reason not to vote for him.

[HuckleB]

37. What did he say before and after that?

As stated by itself, it gives me the heebeejeebees, but I suspect there's more to it than just that line.

[Guaranteed]

43. Waiting for CNN to cough up the transcript nt

[Guaranteed]

63. Well, if someone else can find it, I'd love to see it

It's not posted on the Crossfire transcript page

[Guaranteed]

57. Just as a side-note, Kerry uses this phrase "stand up to Saddam"

all the time. I searched kerry "stand up to saddam" on Google and got this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=kerry+%22stand+up+to+saddam%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Maybe it's because

it was the right thing to do, and the American people agree, and Kerry wants to beat Bush?

Just a guess.

[dreissig]

90. Standing Up To Saddam

The expression stand up to Saddam is a metaphor suggesting confronting a bully who's much larger than yourself. In the case of Iraq, the metaphor breaks down in terms of who is standing up to whom. Even if fistfights are an appropriate way to settle disputes between people, the real "bully" here is the United States. We're much more powerful than Iraq; that little country has never been a threat to us. We picked a fight with Iraq for the purpose of siezing its assets.

Kerry uses inappropriate analogies the same way Bush uses them: to hide the real meaning of what's going on. In the case of Iraq, Bush told the larger lie that Iraq was a pressing, imminent danger to us. But the smaller lie, which Kerry continues to tell, is that military success is the only way to deal with that danger.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. OK, blame Kerry if you want. I blame Bush.

[Guaranteed]

121. I blame them both.

I understand Kerry didn't want the war, but he didn't have the leadership to stand up against it when it mattered. He abandoned us for his own sake.

[For PaisAn]

62. His actions are what matters

It doesn't matter what he said or says now in comparison to what he did. He abrogated his duties as a Senator. He gave Bush a blank check to wage war. He had a chance to stand up and he caved. It's disturbing to hear him say that he was "mislead" by Bush. Many Senators and Congressmen and millions of people worldwide did not fall for the Bush lies.

It does not instill confidence in me that either he was fooled or he voted in favor for political purposes. Many times those in Congress need to compromise on a vote or issue in order to get something else passed. NOT when it involves war or our Bill of Rights. That's where the line must be drawn.

It also doesn't matter that "it wouldn't have happened if he was President", one of his favorite lines. He wasn't president, he was a Senator and he caved on the two most important issues (IWR and the Patriot Act). The power to declare war is vested in Congress because it should never be up to one man to decide something so grave.

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. I agree with every word you just posted. n/t

[bigtree]

110. The power to commit forces was invested in loopholes in the WPA

The War Powers Act. The same authority that presidents have used for decades to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval.

Bush wanted the cover of Congress. Save the provisions that Sen. Kerry and others had included about war as a last resort, Democrat's imput on that bill - which sought to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. - was reduced to a no vote. The bill doesn't mandate an immediate rush to invade Iraq. It actually mandates against that. Bush disregarded the intent of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to invasion and occupation.

[Stuckinthebush]

79. Kerry was wrong to vote for the IWR

There is no way to spin it to make it the right thing to do. He was wrong, he abdicated his responsibility to a dangerous president.

He was right on his vote of NO for the 87 billion dollars. He got that right. He needs to highlight that vote and downplay his weak YES for the IWR.

This being said, I'll vote for him if he is the eventual nominee because John Kerry has a long history of supporting Democratic principles.

[saoirse]

81. It's right on the money

Even if you think an invasion of Iraq was justified (which I don't), Bush seriously damaged American interests by not marshalling broad international support for the invasion and assembling a real coalition of countries that would participate. In other words, he didn't do in Iraq what was done in Afghanistan. He and Tony Blair went at it more or less by themselves (not forgetting Australia!), and now we're paying the price in American and British blood.

It's been a foreign policy disaster of epic proportions. The only reason it's not more widely seen as such is because of the complicity of the corporate media. Had it been a Democrat (which would never have happened anyway), that same corporate media would be baying for their blood.

Let Karl Rove have his sound bite - in the end it'll come back to bite his trained monkey in a flight suit.

[kentuck]

82. It validates the only issue that George W Bush has for his campaign...

and the only one he will need unless we weaken him on that issue///

[gulliver]

84. Kerry got mugged.

He didn't stand up to Bush enough.

I loved it when Kerry smacked Tom DeLay. I loved Kerry's story about camping on the mall protesting the Vietnam war. I just don't think Kerry is our strongest play.

[Ramsey]

89. Straddles the fence

Kerry has to say it because of his IWR vote, but in my view, it straddles the fence too much. The problem of course that the vote gave Bush the discretion to do whatever he wanted, and people may or may not buy the line that Bush lied to Kerry and the others about what he would do.

We all believe that of course, but does the average person?

[bigtree]

113. The average person

apparently agreed with the IWR vote. They were duped along with Congress into believing that the president would keep his word and invade Iraq. You may not have been, I may not have been, but the point to the opposition to Bush's actions was that he had disregarded the will of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his push to war.

[hey2370]

91. Yeah, that big bad Saddam

Wait, who was the superpower? Him, right? No...wait, it was us! So how did we "stand up to" some tinpot powerless dictator, again?

I think what he meant to say was, "I was afraid, really really afraid, that I would lose my backers for the Presidency in 2004 if I voted against the Iraq version of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In summary, I am the vet who protested against Vietnam and yet voted to start another one. YEEAAGGH!".

[cthrumatrix]

97. I wish he would read Paul O'Neill's book on the "march to war" he may say

a few things differently

[emulatorloo]

99. He did, and Jan 10 He said Bush Lied

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0110.html

John Kerry Responds to Secretary O’Neill’s Iraq Charges

January  10,  2004

For Immediate Release
Des Moines, Iowa -

 

“These are very serious charges by a former high ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O’Neill’s revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those promises. It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world. It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter their already damaged credibility as never before.”

[hey2370]

107. Duh, John, we all knew this BEFORE you voted for the IWR

In general at least, and you really had to have your head up your butt to trust Bush after all the stuff he pulled up to that point.

So, why would Kerry be an acceptable leader?

Because he saved somebody's life in Vietnam?

Because he votes liberal whenever it won't affect his chances of election?

Because he has the most monotone speaking style of any of the candidates?

[IndianaGreen]

101. It means that Kerry disagrees with Bush on tactics, not on goals!

Kerry will continue the endless imperial wars that Bush started, except that Kerry would not make a big PR production out of it. Kerry would do it out of the view of the public.

Kerry is a "compassionate" PNACer!

Did you expect our Bonesman to be different from theirs?

[emulatorloo]

103. It is not just a tactical disagreement

War as last resort, only if imminent threat to US. His position has been consistent, as consistent as yours.

On edit left out work in title

[For PaisAn]

109. Again, his actions are what matters

It doesn't matter what he said or says now in comparison to what he did. He abrogated his duties as a Senator. He gave Bush a blank check to wage war. He had a chance to stand up and he caved.
See my post # 62

[emulatorloo]

122. It is Bush's war, not Kerry's no matter how many times you say it

Bush lied, not Kerry and IWR is not a blank check -- it is War as the last resort after all else has failed in the face on an imminent threat. That is what Kerry voted for, that was his action. Based on Bush's lies and Bush's Top Secret Briefings to the Senate filled w cooked analysis.

On edit clarify, . . .

[IndianaGreen]

141. If Kerry is elected, Iraq will become a Democratic war

If Kerry is elected, Iraq will become a Democratic war and Guantanamo will be a Democratic concentration camp!

This is what will happen unless Kerry pulls the troops out, repeals PATRIOT, gives POW status to the prisoners in Guantanamo, moves them to humane facilities and allows the Red Cross to visit them.

Anything less than what I mention above, and you will quickly see us marching for peace against Kerry as we did against Bush. This begs the question: will Kerry keep the "First Amendment Zones" that Bush/Ashcroft used?

Don't let Iraq become a Democratic war!

[bigtree]

146. Can anyone reasonably "pull the troops out"?

All of them? Immediately withdraw? Which candidate supports this?

[LiberalTexan]

105. That is the one statement that

pushed me over the edge this last summer. It sent me to the Dean camp where I've been happy ever since. I will never give money to the Kerry campaign. Even if he is our candidate.

I'll register new voters, but I won't work for the campaign.

[MoonAndSun]

112. The one statement he made last year that moved me away from

Kerry was "get over it", in response to the 2000 election. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him, but nothing else.

[sandnsea]

115. And quit crying in our teacups

And I swear after being on this board for almost a year, I couldn't agree with him more. I'm too busy to waste time lamenting over Florida, it's wasted energy. We all need to get up off our asses and get out there and fight back. I know what he's doing. Some people would rather whine and bitch. Others would rather scream and rant. He and his vets and his firefighters are up off their asses fighting where it counts. That's what I joined them.

[Guaranteed]

123. It's the line he has to play. Nothing else is consistent with his vote.

Kerry's stuck with this impotent position. It's weak as hell, and we can't have a nominee that is this damned weak when it comes to the war.

[emulatorloo]

128. Just curious on your anti-war position

is war ever necessary or are you anti-war in all cases?

If war is ever necessary, what are the conditions that need to be met?

THnX!

On Edit: cant ever get a post right the first time. . .missing words.

[Guaranteed]

139. No, war is necessary most certainly when we're attacked.

I have an ethical volition against striking first, though, unless, of course the threat is clear and imminent. And I mean CLEAR. Usually my kind of clear means dead bodies. We almost have to be hit first.

I agreed with the invasion of Aghanistan. Of course we had to do something after 9/11, and it seems pretty clear that we hit the right people.

Iraq wasn't anywhere near the point where we needed to attack them. I mean NOWHERE near.

[emulatorloo]

130. PS I am not sure it is a impotent position

I think it is a position that a lot of people have and can relate to.

Bush lied to them. He said Saddam had WMDs and Nukes and could hit us at any time.

They supported Bush, and thought war was a last resort. But he lied. And they are mad about it.

On edit cant type I got a C+

[mmonk]

129. I have some problem with it

in that it really doesn't address the core of the problem of current foreign policy except maybe we didn't convince everyone to go along. The core issue is the preemptive war issue as the forefront of foreign policy.

[emulatorloo]

132. Kerry is not for preemptive war and has lots to say about foreign policy

Please visit johnkerry.com -- you can't get his positions from somebody who is attacking him or quoting out of context. They actually seem pretty close to Clark's, if I am understanding Clark right. If I am being presumptive, I apologize.

[TLM]

133. I don't think Kerry had prostate cancer....

I think they had to go in a surgically remove pieces of the fence he's spent the last 3 years sitting on.

[TopesJunkie]

135. Sounds like Kerry really put his foot in his mouth today --

This scares the crap out of me. I hope the people of New Hampshire are paying attention.

[freetempe]

136. Stand up to Saddam?!?! WTF??

Saddam was a threat? He had been successfully contained for more than a decade, was not a threat to his neighbors much less the US and was not developing ANY Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So why did we need to "stand up to him"? Why did 500 Americans have to die along with thousands of Iraqis? Oh, yeah, not because Saddam was a menace, but because the Oil industry needed more cash.

Gaaawddd, what Bush-enabler. As if I didn't have enough reasons to hate John Kerry.

[David Zephyr]

137. Anti-War Kerry Will Be Pro-War Kerry Come South Carolina Primary.

He's already having his surrogates in the south praising his vote for War with Iraq.

Anti-War Kerry for Liberal States
Pro-War Kerry for Conservative States

[Guaranteed]

140. I just want to point out one more thing.

Kerry said this in the Crossfire interview:

"Their -- the president did not do, I think, the diplomacy that the United States of America deserves, that the world deserves, before you take a nation to war. There's no graver decision that a president makes. And when the international community is sending you every signal in the world, slow down, let's do this in a responsible way, a president ought to listen. This president didn't."

So, the Bush administration had come to the Senate with concerns that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they could be a threat to the United States. In light of 9/11, they needed to be disarmed. Kerry said, "You're right. We need to stand up to Saddam Hussein." Right? Right. HOWEVER, Kerry and many other Senators, including John Edwards, wanted to make sure that Bush had played out all of the non-violent methods of dealing with Saddam to their ends before going to war. Certainly a sensible way of dealing with the problem.

Alright...so then why did the Senate authorize the war before Bush had "done" the diplomacy that he needed to "do" before resorting to war? You know that at the very least some Democratic senators were suspicious about Bush's motives. Many, many regular citizens had those suspicions (and, of course, they were right)- certainly someone as politically savvy as a senator, or a group of senators, can see lies like these coming. After all, some senators DID have the nerve to vote against the IWR.

But, nevermind that- let's just play with the idea for a moment that Bush wasn't lying, that there really was a threat to the US. IF there was such a big threat coming from Iraq that it had to be "stood up to," and it was to be met with war ONLY as a last resort, then the Senate should have waited to authorize the war until all of the diplomatic options had been exhausted. You don't authorize such a costly and risky endeavor, especially when it's going to be carried out characters the likes of the Bush administration, until it's absolutely necessary.

But wait....the whole point of the IWR was to give Bush credibility with Saddam and the UN. It was meant to scare them; it was meant to force Saddam to allow the UN inspectors back in, and to make the UN join in on the fight. Now, an argument Kerry supporters keep making is that Bush actually went AGAINST the IWR by invading. Supposedly, the IWR didn't give him the proper authorization. But there would have been no point in passing the IWR BEFORE DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED if it didn't give him the power to invade at his own will. Anything other than carte blanche, and it wouldn't have been intimidating to anyone.

Sorry, Kerry, but your defense of your vote, and the IWR itself, doesn't fly. You knew that Iraq posed no threat to us, just like we all did. You knew that Bush had ulterior motives, just like we all did. Yet you helped to give him the power to invade another country that had nothing to do with 9/11, costing American lives, billions of dollars, and our standing in the world community. This whole thing is nothing but a weak excuse meant to make-over the fact that you got bulldozed because you were afraid of being called unpatriotic while having so much to lose- like a run at the presidency.

[cthrumatrix]

144. The part that I don't like is "anybody" not saying it like it is.... the

media and the facts are distant cousins.

The premise for war was a lie (the O'Neill book clearly documents that). The words from bush's mouth and his cabinet were lies...that's been proven with NO WMDS's...

and the media goes "silent"....well screw that...they can yell, and kick and mock and poke at Dean.... but they won't call out the lies of this admin in which 1000's of people have died.

The media is just as guilty in their coverage and I am sick of "non-truth" ..so Kerry can share his views as well as the other...but call a spade a spade...we were lied to and nobody has the xxxxx to step up and say it like Kucinich & Dean.

That is the definition of a leader.

[bigtree]

145. Bush's position at the time was that 1441 was sufficient authority

to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war. Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.

He sought to use Congress as cover but was forced back to the U.N. He got a chilly reception there but he stuck his chin out and pushed past that body and Congress. You know the rest. 140+ responses to choose from . . .

[ChemEng]

147. He is playing both sides of the street.....

Kerry wants the anti-war vote (i.e., Dean's supporters) but also wants to show that he is willing to use force when necessary. I think I'll stick with the real thing (Dean!).