Are you satisfied with Kerry's defense of IWR?

[m-jean03]

So he's said he was deceived about WMD's.

He's said he voted for a "process" in which war was the last resort.
Does this make sense? Do you believe him?
Are you satisfied? Please explain why or why not.

I have to admit, I've been a sucker for getting my socks charmed off by the guy otherwise. But I want some discussion re IWR. Let's do this here, once and for all, perhaps encore, but on this point only.

[Walt Starr]

1. No, I'm not

His office, as was the office of countless Democrats, was deluged with calls telling him Bush was a liar and not to give Bush Carte Blanche.

He chose political expediency over doing the right thing. while that may not make him a "bad man" it certainly confirms that he is not a "good man".

[Poseidon]

67. Walt,

you change your transferability list almost every day, it seems. Why isn't Sharpton on your list? I thought he used to be. Why isn't Lieberman on your list? Kerry is certainly electable. All of our candidates are electable except for Sharpton, and Kerry is certainly as electable as Dean.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Maybe you should post all of the links and quotes

before you engage in this.

[HFishbine]

3. I believe him

but I'm not satisfied. He should have known better than to trust Bush with such a "process" and he should have looked at credible sources, Such as Will Pitt's and Scott Ritter's book that questioned the WMD "evidence."

I believe him, but I think he exercised poor judgement.

[jpgray]

4. In a word, "no".

But I still support him as a candidate. I'm much more satisfied with Dean's response on this one, remembering he didn't have to vote.

[eissa]

5. I like Kerry

In an earlier post I asked his supporters what Kerry brought to the table that others don't and received some great replies. I've visited his website and went over his record. He was actually on the top of my wish list of dems that should run for president. He is a strong second choice for me and I would support him in heartbeat if he gets the nomination. BUT...I am still not satisfied with the reasoning behind his vote and worry how it will be used against him (as we've seen already) by this administration.

[LuminousX]

6. For me, anything short of a repudiation of his vote

and an apology for it, isn't enough. The more he tries to explain his reasoning, the more I get disgusted by it and wish he would just shut up. If he isn't going to repudiate and apologize, then he should just move on instead of rubbing my nose in the fact that he did something I find despicable coming from a man of his distinguished background and history.

[lcordero]

7. Nope

There is no defense and there is no excuse.

Putting this guy up as the nominee might win for now but it will turn away people from the Democratic Party in the future.

I do see something good coming out of the Iraq rape. In the future, there will be extreme cynicism of anybody that will try peddling the deployment of troops as "humanitarian" and people will look further into what the motives are.

[sangh0]

8. Yes

I agree and support his IWR vote

[Iverson]

9. War is too important a thing ...

... to suddenly lose one's critical faculties. I wouldn't much care if it were other sorts of issues, but life-and-death is different.

[cthrumatrix]

16. thank you

[Forkboy]

21. I couldn't put it better myself

[pnziii]

10. Heck NO!!!

I wasn't fooled by Bush & CO. I knew it was a fake. Why didn't he.

DO you want someone as President that got fooled into voting to go to WAR!!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. NO!

Kerry (and he's certainly not alone in this) should have never surrendered the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war to an unlected fraudulent pResident without seeing concrete physical evidence of the threat the Fraudministration claimed to exist.

[rfjockey]

17. No

He is too smart a guy to have not been able to see through GWB's game. He did it for political reasons. He felt under additional pressure because his vote against the first gulf war turned out to be the wrong one politically. All those reasons he gives now are just justifications after the fact. If Dean hadn't made this such a big campaign issue Kerry probably wouldn't even be talking about it much.
That being said, I still like Kerry and will support him if he wins the nomination. I just think he made a political calculation and now it has backfired to some extent. Dean seems to have a higher "political" IQ, that's why I think he has a better shot at winning in the end. We'll see.

[Metrix]

55. Dean trying to compare and contrast the votes on I and II is a new low

even for him. It either shows his lack of depth and understanding of the issues or his pure calculation in dumbing things down for his base. At this point I think it is the latter.

The first Gulf War could have and should have been avoided. Bush I lied this country into that war.

[Darth_Ole]

18. Hell no.

No one's explanation for IWR will ever be good enough for me.

When the IWR first passed at the end of 2002, there was a large constituency of DUers here who were outraged at the masssive amount of high ranking Dems supporting the war (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, Dascle, etc.) and many claimed that there were only a few true Democrats left, like Wellstone.

It's amazing to me how many people have flip-flopped. Now it seems that many DUers (and Dems for that matter) are saying "Well, I guess the IWR wasn't that big a deal."

Yes, it was! It gave Bush authorization to go to war. Period. Everyone's trying to pretend that they opposed it, now that we know it was all a fake.

[killbotfactory]

12. No.

He takes credit for all the good that has come about because of the war, and then blames everything bad that's happened on Bush. He says war should only be a last resort, said the inspectors needed more time, and then supported a premature war over non-existant weapons which has caused massive amounts of harm to our country.

[0007]

13. I like Kerry, but Kerry couldn't get my watch & chain -

I don't believe John! John Kerry is just another politician that is clever with words.

Only for the party sake would I support him.

[sandnsea]

14. The President "Commander in Chief"

No matter when Congress authorizes the use of troops, it is always up to the President to decide when and how they're deployed. Hence the name Commander in Chief. That's the President's job. And avoiding the deployment by every means possible is also the President's job. Based on Iowa and the polls, it seems most people remember their 8th grade government class and know that.

[Monte Carlo]

15. Bill Clinton's insistence on Saddam explained a lot to me...

... because he was himself convinced that Saddam had weapons before we actually invaded the country. The joke went - "How do we know Saddam had WMD's? Because we still have the receipts."

No one really knew for sure, and it is often better to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of national security and nuclear/chemical/biological weapons proliferation.

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. Yes indeed, we do have the reciepts!

[Monte Carlo]

57. Those are funny. I saved them to disk.

I'd bet you that those are closer to reality than what would make us comfortable.

[underpants]

19. Let me suggest that everyone READ the IWR

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[underpants]

27. NO he shouldn't have voted for it but Yes his story will work

The resolution, amongst other things, claims that alQaeda is in Iraq and to prevent another attack the US must act. Okay there WERE alQaeda in Iraq which is about the same as saying that there WERE alQaeda in the US prior to and on 9/11. It also says that all diplomatic means will be exhausted before action is taken.

Here is where Kerry can make this work. At the time there was strong opposition to giving this much power to the President, any President and to calm concerns the WH told Congress that this act was a show of a united supporting US that W needed when going to the UN. They did the same thing with IWR that they do with other legislation and that they did in the UN, they explain what they MEAN and as soon as it is approved they say 'Oh no we didn't mean THAT we meant THIS'. NEgroponte was running all over the UN telling members that there was no "automaticity" in 1441 (read that one too and see if it isn't vague) but as soon as it was passed and missiles were found they claimed that they had the authority to act even though 1441 says that the Security Council will meet to reconsider this at a later time.

Kerry has to sell this as "Hey I was lied to too" that brings the middle who see now that it was all based on lies in to supporting or at least considering him.

[sandnsea]

32. To enforce UN resolutions

The authorization had nothing to do with al qaeda. Enforcing UN resolutions OR defending U.S. security was all it allowed. And as you state, it also required Bush to make a determination, just like Biden-Lugar, that ALL peaceful and democratic means had been exhausted. It isn't even a manner of "spin" or anything else. It's the truth. The President always makes the final decision about deploying troops and is expected not to do so based on lies and misrepresentations. There isn't a thing in the world wrong with this resolution.

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.

[underpants]

42. Whereas members of al Qaida...........

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;


In this resolution the WH used part of the justification a link between Iraq and alQaeda, it wasn't the only justification but it is in there.

As I remember it there were questions raised about this giving the Presidenct the ability to start actions on his own and only report back but the clarification (which no one got in writing) as that this was only meant to be used IF the UN came along and as soon as that didn't happen their (the WH) story changed.

[sandnsea]

62. No, those aren't the Authorization

Those are just various circumstances surrounding the situation. They carry no legal weight.

The Authorization is to enforce UN resolutions OR protect U.S. security from any continuing threat of Iraq. That's it. No fighting the terrorists allowed unless they were getting ready to attack or something.

[m-jean03]

31. Didn't Kerry insist certain limitations

be attached to this? This is what I've heard?
Can someone clear this up and tell me where this part is, cause I can't find it.

[isbister]

45. Other Senators did

but with the Liebermans and Millers of the party jumping to the other side, the limitations that got passed were the ones that could get past the let's-get-Saddam-at-any-cost crowd..

There's a loophole in the Constitution/War Powers Act that really has not been legally resolved. Some think that the President can use the military whenever the national security is threatened and others believe that the President must get permission from Congress under all circumstances (aside from direct physical attack).

Bush and the gang wanted to load up and go in to Iraq, no Congress, no UN. The polls and the Congress (not just Democrats) stepped in (polls at the time said most Americans wanted UN involvement and would not accept unilateral war).

Bush later claimed, when he went in, it was because of Iraq's threat to our security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html) and could have claimed direct attact upon our military at almost any time since Iraq fired at our planes in the no-fly zone area tens of thousands of times (although they never were able to hit anything). In other words bush didn't need the IWR for an excuse, he had those already and all ready.

[Walt Starr]

35. Here's where Congrsess handed over their authority

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-

[sangh0]

38. Try again

The Constitution give the CINC the authority to use the US Armed Forces. Resolutions can't give anyone any authority because resolutions have no legal standing.

[goobergunch]

52. Joint resolutions do

Bills and joint resolutions both have the force of law.

In fact, the IWR can be referred to as Public Law 107-243.

[Walt Starr]

65. And thus, Kerry voted in favor

of giving unlimited authority to make war on Iraq to Bush.

I believe Bush would have gone regardless of the outcome of the vote and that more than likely the IWR would have still passed, but at least Kerry could have been on record voting the right way.

[bigtree]

53. The resolution references the WPA

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 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.

That is what I believe this specific statutory authorization is stating. Hence:

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

[isbister]

49. and did bush meet or

violate the conditions Congress set forth? Correct, he violated them.

In addition to what you have here there were also reporting requirements. Bush did not follow them as instructed by Congress either.

Here's bush's reasons for invading:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

Would diplomatic and other peaceful means have adequately protect the national security of the United States? Yes, bush lied.

Was it likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq? There was no indication that it wouldn't. The US and UK gave Blix a laundry list of places where we were sure they WMD were and Blix turned up nothing after nothing. France, Germany, and Russia, (and others) asked for a bit more time for the inspectors before they could sign on to any action. bush denied it.

Oh, and by the way, those weren't Democrats that were undermining Blix, and those weren't Democrats that were ticking everybody off in the UN, those were republican bush people.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Do I even need to go too deep on this lie by bush? George II himself even admitted in September 2003 that there was never a connection to 9/11.

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

[PVnRT]

20. Not particularly

I will admit that the administration knowingly lied to Congress, falsified information, and got CIA director Tenet to go down there and do it for them, but I don't really buy the "process" thing. Why not propose a new resolution where that was spelled out clearer?

That said, I'm not going to throw out the man's record for one or two votes, as much as I oppose those votes.

[bigtree]

54. The Democrats did but it failed

that was the infamous Biden-Lugar bill that Gov. Dean apparently supported.


Does anyone really believe that Bush wouldn't have pushed past Biden-Lugar with a wink and a letter to Congress?

Or for that matter, how would a 'no' vote retrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441. He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting. What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy.

Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere.

But some will attempt to hold Democrats who voted for the IWR as responsible for his arbitrary invasion. Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush.


Yeah, Bush used the IWR in a slap at John Kerry the other night. His words prove nothing, by the way. Just more obfuscation of his own responsibility in this.

[buff2]

22. No

Seems to me he has always caved in to the bu$h nazis. I never will forget how all the dems acted when the election was stolen. They acted like bu$h actually won. I can't and will not "get over it" and him telling us to pushes me further away from him. I want a President that will fight for us and our issues,I don't want a President without any back bone who refuses to stand up to the radical right.I want a President who is not repub-lite....someone who we can tell the difference between the two parties. I don't think anyone can compare to Dean. That's my opinion.

23. the vote was 77-23

"While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

"The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate"

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."




That's why I'm not satisfied with Kerry's explanation.

[Upfront]

24. No way

I even knew they were lying, how could Kerry not? These guys voted for the war because it was favored by most people and they did not want to look weak on defense. Dean said it was wrong and there was no evidence before the war, he was right. I would cut them some slack, but to many people said there was no reason to go to war and they have been proven right.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. There's no excuse for it.

He voted for it. He knew Bush was lying. How do I know he knew Bush was lying? Because "I" knew Bush was lying and most of the WORLD knew he was lying. Kerry knew what he was doing. He also knew that if it was found to be a lie, he could do what he's doing now...say he thought he was told the truth and was voting for a "process". Bull Hockey! He knew. He knew. He knew.

I find absolutely NOTHING charming about Kerry. He's ugly. He talks too slow. His voice is grating to my nerves. If he wins the nomination and the GE, I see ANOTHER 4 years of switching the channel when the president is on. He rates right up there with George Bush in the palatable factor for me. :puke:

[emulatorloo]

36. Wes didn't know they were lying.

Did you see meet the press yesterday? Wes said that he was convinced. When Rummy told Wes that they knew where 30% of the weapons were, Wes said he believed them, because why would they lie?

Does Wes make you want to puke now too? Well, not me.

Wes is a brilliant man and one of my favorites, and like Kerry he found what they were saying compelling.

GWB et al were master liars, and I just can't buy that we should blame the victims of the lie and not the liars.

[Forkboy]

37. They're not "master liars"

they downright suck at it,and many of us knew better.That Clark fell for it like Kerry is hardly a plus.

Why would they lie? That would be fucking hilarious if it wasn't so naive and stupid.

40. Logic or instinct told me they were lying on these counts

If Osama bin Laden and Hussein were aligned and if Iraq had nuclear weapons, then they would have used them on the planes when they flew them into the WTC or they would have found a way to use them with a smuggled dirty bomb..
When you are trying to surprise your opponent, you hit them with your best and strongest shot first. You don't tip your hand with half measures.
So, instinctively I felt the case was trumped up It just didn't make sense to me.

I also don't agree that Bush is a master liar. He always has reminded me of a used car salesman or a snake oil salesman, Smarmy. Not a master liar at all.

[emulatorloo]

43. OK I gave Chimpy way too much credit for his lyin' abilities

He can barely talk, much less lie well. . .

but I know they were shown compelling "Top Secret" spy stuff by Tenet et al. Much higher quality stuff. Convincing stuff that you and I didn't see.

I too felt the case was lame at the time. But I don't think we saw the most compelling stuff.

[underpants]

44. Not a good liar but he is never called on it

By either the spineless Dems or the Press supplying facts that fly in the face of every word out of his mouth.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. Master liars?

Again, Bull Hockey! The WORLD knew he was lying. If I knew he was lying and the rest of the world knew he was lying, so did Kerry, Edwards and ANY OTHER member of congress who voted for the IWR. The problem WAS....the Democrats were being painted as .."not patriotic"..."they don't support the troops if they don't support the war." THEY ALL COWERED TO THE RHETORIC! Plain and simple. They knew what they were doing would kill people and voted for it anyway for their political careers, not because they thought the chimp was telling the truth.

I don't care what Wes Clark believed about what the chimp was saying...he didn't vote for the IWR...that subject is moot.

[Ramsey]

26. Unfortunately not

I cannot get over the belief that Kerry's vote was the politically expedient one. It was a time when the fear of being called unpatriotic superseded all sense.

To then turn around and claim he thought he was voting for a different plan, or that Bush lied to them about his plans, is too convenient, it just doesn't resonate.

We ALL knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before 9-11. We ALL knew about the PNACers and their schemes well before that vote was taken. We ALL knew there was no good evidence of WMD. I cannot believe Kerry didn't know these things too.

[TopesJunkie]

28. No --

I don't believe a word the man says, anymore.

[ulysses]

29. no.

As with IAJSR above, that doesn't mean that I won't vote for him in the general should it come to that, but I don't buy his explanation of that vote. Millions of people in the streets knew the war was bogus, and if he didn't know it too, he should have.

[Nicholas_J]

30. Heve you read IWR

Which is a misnomer because the word war is not mentioned in the act.

Mod's this is a government document and therefore not subject to copyright restrictions:


This is the entire section which sttes conditions under which war may be engaged in:



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.

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

Everything must be one through the United Nations, if not, president must provide that the noted conditions actually exist.

[Ramsey]

39. Two questions

I have read that resolution before and again today, as it has been kindly re-posted for our review by a number of members.

My questions are: 1). did or did not Bush use this resolution as justification and permission to invade Iraq?; 2) did or did not a lot of people (including many DUers, and even some Congresspersons) know that would be the inevitable outcome of passing the resolution?

In my opinion, the answer to both of those questions is "yes".

[bigtree]

59. Bush has stated repeatedly before and after the vote

that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted. The U.N. signaled that it would not support preemptive invasion and forced Bush to seek the cover of his republican Congress. But he didn't find much cover in the resolution which clearly mandates a return to the U.N. He pushed past that international body and marched the nation to his predisposed war.

Everyone knew of his intentions. That was the debate. Outside of a 'no' vote, Democrats participation in that decision was reduced to brokering for language in the bill that would mandate restraint. Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and rushed to war.

[emulatorloo]

33. Yes

They saw Top Secret Briefings that we never saw.
Wes Clark said on MTP yesterday that when Rummy told him they knew where 30% of the WMDs were, Wes believed him. . .why would Rummy lie about something like that?

Wes is smart too, one of the smartest we have.

Colin Powell gave his word they would follow process; people trusted Colin Powell to follow through.

We were all real smart on DU at the time but not in the situation that these people were in. It is easy to second guess and say we wouldn't have been fooled, but I have no doubt that the Secret Briefings were very compelling/convincing.


ON edit missing some words

[isbister]

41. Not only deceived about WMD's

but about the administration's plans to move forward. Remember, before the resolution the administration did some (what we now know for sure) lying but they didn't start going for the olympic gold for lying until after the IWR and as they were headed to the UN.

This is not a situation where he changed his position late in the game (as some would have you believe) he explained his position from the floor of the Senate at the time of the vote. He's written and spoke about it consistently before and after but that speech can best explain what he was thinking at that time. You'll find he was very concerned about the possibility of Saddam not being watched/inspected, but he was far from the war-monger that he's often painted out to be. You'll also see that he held quite different positions from Edwards or Lieberman too.

Have you ever read the IWR? If not, read it too:

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

Congress set forth specific conditions that bush had to meet. He didn't but went to war anyway. The republican controlled Congress stopped the Democrats from bringing the matter back to Congress before the war and the republican controlled Congress looked the other way when bush violated the resolution. By that time the Democrats had nothing left to do but whine to a war hungry public.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

47. 100%

I listened to what he said that day.

[David Zephyr]

48. Which One of Kerry's Different Defenses? There Have Been So Many.

M-jean03, I don't know which of Kerry's "defenses" of his IWR vote to even attempt satisfaction with.

Was it the "Bush misled me" defense?

Or was it "it was not an authorization for war" defense?

Or was it, as his political surrogates in the South are now saying, a good thing?

Here's what has happened as a result of Congress empowering Bush to go to War with Iraq:

Over 500 Americans are dead who wouldn't and shouldn't be.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead who wouldn't and shouldn't be.

Nearly $200 Billion dollars of American taxpayer's money is gone which wouldn't be and shouldn't be.

And Osama bin Laden's terror group has now infiltrated into Iraq who wouldn't and shouldn't be.

[bigtree]

51. These defenses

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



"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=


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

[mzmolly]

50. NO FARGEN WAY!

:D

[Snivi Yllom]

56. No

He's a political opportunist. He votes based on opportunity and his career and not becasue it's right.

[IrateCitizen]

58. No. Nor will I ever be.

There is ONE CANDIDATE out there who stands head-and-shoulders above all others on this issue, IMHO. That candidate is DENNIS KUCINICH.

Howard Dean has made noises against the invasion, but he wasn't in a position where he had to vote on it, and also said he would have endorsed Biden-Lugar. Al Sharpton has been outspoken against it, but he didn't have to vote on it, either. Dennis Kucinich, OTOH, not only voted against it -- as co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, he helped spearhead the effort to get well over half of the House Democrats to vote against it.

Kerry will NEVER be able to explain away his vote to me. Nor will Edwards. Nor will Lieberman. It is at times like this, I believe, that it is important to remember a very important US Senator from the early part of the 20th century: Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette.

Here's an excellent article from the Madison Capital Times discussing LaFollette's political life in the wake of his being branded a traitor for his outspoken (and continuous) opposition to US involvement in the First World War:

About Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette
by John Nichols

ON March 25, 1921, at the age of sixty-five, Robert M. La Follette Sr. took the greatest risk of his long political career. Four years after he chose to lead the Congressional opposition to World War I, La Follette was still condemned in Washington and in his native state of Wisconsin as a traitor or--at best--an old man whose political instincts had finally failed him. But La Follette was not ready to surrender the U.S. Senate seat he had held since leaving Wisconsin's governorship in 1906. He wanted to return to Washington to do battle once more against what he perceived to be the twin evils of the still young century: corporate monopoly at home and imperialism abroad.

The reelection campaign that loomed just a year off would be difficult, he was told, perhaps even impossible. Old alliances had been strained by La Follette's lonely refusal to join in the war cries of 1917 and 1918. To rebuild them, the Senator's aides warned, he would have to abandon his continued calls for investigations of war profiteers and his passionate defense of socialist Eugene Victor Debs and others who had been jailed in the postwar Red Scare.

The place to backpedal, La Follette was told, would be in a speech before the crowded Wisconsin Assembly chamber in Madison. Moments before the white-haired Senator climbed to the podium on that cold March day, he was warned one last time by his aides to deliver a moderate address, to apply balm to the still-open wounds of the previous years, and, above all, to avoid mention of the war and his opposition to it.

La Follette began his speech with the formalities of the day, acknowledging old supporters and recognizing that this was a pivotal moment for him politically. Then, suddenly, La Follette pounded the lectern. "I am going to be a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate," he declared, as the room shook with the thunder of a mighty orator reaching full force. Stretching a clenched fist into the air, La Follette bellowed: "I do not want the vote of a single citizen under any misapprehension of where I stand: I would not change my record on the war for that of any man, living or dead."

The crowd sat in stunned silence for a moment before erupting into thunderous applause. Even his critics could not resist the courage of the man; indeed, one of his bitterest foes stood at the back of the hall, with tears running down his cheeks, and told a reporter: "I hate the son of a bitch. But, my God, what guts he's got."

READ THE REST BY CLICKING ON THE ARTICLE TITLE ABOVE


In short, John Kerry's vote was an act of political survival rather than any sort of a stand. Can any of us say with honesty that we would have done any better in the same situation? I don't think that any of us can truly answer that question. But the fact is that, when confronted with this situation, Kerry had a choice. He could have made a stand -- and more importantly, stood by unwaveringly his choice to do so -- and shown himself as a man of unflappable guts and character. That was the choice that Robert LaFollette took. But what Kerry did, was take the politically expedient route, made more maddening by his repeated attempts to use twisted logic to justify his vote. I actually respect Lieberman more on this issue, because although Joe is wrongheaded on this issue, he has at least been unwavering. Kerry has been another story, entirely -- and has shown himself to be another politician rather than a true leader who can inspire.

[bigtree]

61. I liked what Rep. Kucinich did in Congress.

You say:

"In short, John Kerry's vote was an act of political survival rather than any sort of a stand."

It is not fair to say that Rep. Kucinich was the only one acting on principle. Was it clear at the time of the vote that Americans supported the IWR? If not, then where is the political benefit? How could anyone know what the politics would be a year from the vote?

[kstewart33]

60. I am very satisfied

I support his position and see no problem with it. And I think that the majority of the Dem party will have no problem with it.

I am so tired of anger over the Iraq war. I was angry for a long time, but have since realized that it's unproductive.

Anger will not win us the White House. Dean overdosed on anger in Iowa; look where it got him. He's come on like a pussycat at least for most of last week.

If he goes back to his anger schstick, heaven help us all.

[IrateCitizen]

63. You know what I am tired of regarding Iraq?

Death.
Destruction.
Imperialism.
Oppression.

I'm sorry, but these aren't things that I can let go of my anger on. Maybe you can stop troubling your "beautiful mind" with such trivialities as the lives of your fellow human beings being wasted needlessly, but I am unable to do so.

If John Kerry were to get the nomination, I would by all means support and vote for him. But I would not expect him to be a leader, but rather just another politician. For through his vote (and perhaps even more maddening, his repeated and changing attempts to justify it) he has shown himself to be such.

Want to know about a REAL leader standing up in the face of war? READ THIS.

[emulatorloo]

64. His speech at the time

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out.   If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community.  The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain.  The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.   Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options.  But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible. 

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[many a good man]

66. I'm satisfied

At the time I could only conceive of it as bluff meant to force resumption of the inspection process (I know, quite naive in retrospect). Sanctions HAD to end sometime. Its still hard to believe they would have intentionally sabotaged diplomacy and ignite an unprovoked war.

Like Byrd, I'm totally opposed to these resolutions that give advanced consent to use force. Its unconstitutional. I have much greater respect for those that voted against it but I cannot condemn someone who signed on in an effort to re-start the inspections process and end sanctions...

[ibegurpard]

68. No

eom

[THUNDER HANDS]

69. I'm a Kerry supporter and I don't believe that

But I still support him.

If I were in his shoes, I'd have done the same thing.