Kerry in 2003: I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

[ProSense]

?The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,? continued Kerry, ?I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn?t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You?re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.?

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words ?weapons inspectors? were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush?s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded

[jody]

1. Bush's record was replete with lies and Kerry believed him? Now Kerry endorses a candidate without a

track record. :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Without a track record?

He's been against the war in Iraq from day one.

He's the most liberal senator in the Senate.

He scores higher than Clinton on his environmental record.

Higher than Clinton with the Children's defense fund.

Of course Clinton's got a track record too, but that record sucks.

[redqueen]

6. Their voting record in the Senate is nearly identical.

Perhaps your post was meant to be comical in nature?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Sounds Naderish.

They're not identical.

[redqueen]

17. You did see the word "nearly" didn't you?

Have you reviewed their voting records? Vote by vote?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. No, but other people have.

On broad issues, Obama scores consistently better.

On key issues, I have paid attention.

And I can't vote for anybody who voted for the IWR.

[redqueen]

23. Well... like I said... only 10 votes differentiated the two... and some of those

were when one voted but the other didn't, so...

:shrug:

But yeah, if the IWR is the linchpin for ya, you don't really have to worry about the rest of their votes being nearly identical.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Indeed.

I consider the war in Iraq a pretty big deal.

[redqueen]

28. The biggest, actually.

*sigh*

[apnu]

7. that and he was in the IL state government for how long?

15 years or something like that...

'no track-record' is B.S.

[11 Bravo]

35. The most liberal senator in the Senate? Why, because the National Journal says so?

Bwahahahahaha! Are you aware that in 2004 the same publication found that, will wonders never cease, John Kerry was "the most liberal member of the Senate"? Nice source there, Sparky.

[AGirl]

3. So Kerry believed him too? LoL>

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Bad on him for being duped.

Good on him for speaking out IMMEDIATELY, and not supporting the war for three years until public opinion turned against it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. Weak

[ProSense]

14. Worried! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Kerry in 2004: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."


In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, the Democratic presidential nominee said that his goal as president would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office through diplomacy and foreign assistance...

... Since last month's Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

[ProSense]

8. At your link: "Why...rush to war on faulty intelligence...not...give America the truth?" n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Sure. Kerry complained about HOW Bush exercised his authority

But Kerry still STOOD BY his IWR vote almost two year laters because he still believed that the IWR gave George W. Bush the authority that he needed to have. Jokn Kerry could not have been clearer here about saying that his IWR vote was the right vote to make at the time, because it gave Bush the proper authority. And Kerry still supportred his IWR vote, even in hindsight, EVEN KNOWING IN 2004 that no WMD's were found inside Iraq. Here again is the question to which Kerry answered "Yes":

"Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there."

Hillary Clinton says, knowing what she knows now, that she would not have made that vote. She certainly does not support how Bush abused his powers.

[ProSense]

12. The IWR's purpose is not in dispute. Kerry spoke out publicly against the invasion before hand. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. The text you included in your OP supports Hillary Clinton's position

That is the point I was responding to:

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You' re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words ?weapons inspectors? were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council...


Your text explains why Kerry thought his IWR vote was right and proper, even in hind sight. I was pointing that out.

[ProSense]

22. Hillary's position? Did you read her comments? Like I said, the purpose of the IWR is

not in dispute

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. You must have tunnel vision if you don't know that the purpose of the IWR

has been very much in dispute on DU all year, and especially over the last week. Since you brought Kerry into this, and introduced his arguments in favor of a vote for the IWR, I simply commented on that. It is relevent to the larger discussion going on here about how we got into the war in Iraq.

[ProSense]

27. Oh, is that why you, in response to my posting a clarification,

responded with this?

The discussion is about Hillary and her comments in contrast to Obama. She can't even claim to have thought through her opposition to the invasion as Kerry did, or defend the fact that she, unlike Kerry, was not a public and forceful voice of opposition.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Except Hillary did not only defend her vote, she defended the war

itself, until it became 'unpopular'. She did NOT stand up immediately, as Kerry did, and denounce the invasion.

[mtnsnake]

10. Amen. The only reason Kerry ever apologized later was because he thought he would run again in '08

and he felt an apology was necessary in order to smooth over any bad feelings between him and the base of our Party over his vote for the war. He knew that without the support of the Base, he wouldn't have a chance of succeeding with a run. As it turned out, nobody gave a hoot about him running again anyway, not after his dreadful performance in '04.

Thank goodness Hillary or Obama is running this time and not him. There will be so many things we just won't have to worry about, starting with someone who actually knows how to release balloons from the ceiling of the convention hall. What a disastrous campaign that was!

[beachmom]

15. Let's be clear that you don't know anything about John Kerry and

what he was thinking. You have been trashing him from the first time I saw your name on this board. There is no difference between you or Fox News when it comes to John Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Let me be clear that I was proud to work for Kerry to be elected in 2004

My comments here are not an attack on him.

[mtnsnake]

29. As if people aren't used to your pathetic whinery enough, your silly slander doesn't bother me

in the least.

You have been trashing him from the first time I saw your name on this board. There is no difference between you or Fox News when it comes to John Kerry

If anyone has trashed candidates with vicious comments it's you with your pathetic insults and innuendo about anyone in the Clinton family.

Tough for you if you can't stomach criticism about John Kerry's campaign or his bogus hypocritical apology. Contrary to the garbage lies you love telling about me, I've often tempered my criticism of Kerry's campaign by stating that he's a fine man, a good Senator, a war hero, and a great environmentalist. So buzz off if you only think that Hillary is fair game.

[ProSense]

16. Thank goodness Kerry endorsed Obama! n/t

[mtnsnake]

30. You took the words right out of Hillary's mouth!

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. His dreadful performance?

He WON. The DLC undercut any attempt to push that through, because they wanted Hillary for 08.

[sandnsea]

9. Kerry supports the guy who got it right

Only in Hillaryworld could that be a bad thing.

[KansDem]

21. Which one of the 935 lies did you fall for, Senator?

Was it no. 73? Or 432? How about no. 719?

[ProSense]

24. Glad to see you admit they were lies! As for the Obama, one of the Dem candidates, none. n/t

[KansDem]

34. The 935 lies of George W. Bush

Two independent nonprofit journalism groups apparently took enough laudanum and beat down whatever healthy sense of human decency they had in order to plunge straight into that quivering mountain of incompetence that is the official record of the Bush administration, all the false quotes and all the lie-strewn press conferences and all the squinty-eyed fabrications from Dubya, Colin Powell, Condi and Cheney and Rummy et al, that took place in the two years after September 11, 2001, and added them all up.

Is it helpful to know the exact number? Does it make a difference? After all, presidential lying isn't exactly a revelation. Pretty much a national pastime, really. Hell, Bill Clinton lied in a harmless civil lawsuit, and was even impeached for it. Of course, his little oral fixation didn't lead us into an unwinnable trillion-dollar war that will scar the nation for multiple generations and which has wasted 4,000 American lives and resulted in tens of thousands of wounded, crippled and brain-damaged U.S. soldiers. But that's just splitting hairs, really.

After all, it's common knowledge that, say, George Bush Sr. lied about Iran-Contra and "read my lips," Ronald Reagan lied like a nasty old rug about Iran and aiding the Contras, Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to gain support for the Vietnam war, Harry Truman probably lied about Hiroshima and John F. Kennedy probably lied about the Bay of Pigs and, well, all presidents lie, really, to some degree or another and with varying degrees of success and historic consequence. Is it not sort of pointless to whine about it?

Fair enough. But there is something truly special about Bush 43. Something so unique, so poisonous and strange that historians are busy right this minute rewriting not only their books, but their entire way of thinking about how we measure and interpret political malfeasance.

--more--
SFgate

[pat_k]

36. It's Bush's CRIME, not "our mistake."

Blaming themselves is just a way to escape the truth.

And the truth is that the occupants of the White House lied to them. They terrorized the nation into a criminal war with threats of mushroom clouds. The truth is that Bush and Cheney proved themselves to be dangerous and intolerable liars who must be removed before they do more harm.

The only "mistake" is taking the blame when they should have accused (impeached) and sought to remove the REAL culprits.