Helen Thomas: Kerry Deals Away his Ace in the Hole

[Larkspur]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-03.htm

It appears American voters have little choice between the presidential candidates in the November election when it comes to the disastrous war against Iraq.

Both President Bush and his rival, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seem to think it was worth the 932 American lives (so far) and thousands of U.S. wounded to get one man behind bars -- Saddam Hussein.

There also are the untold thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded as well. But, as one Pentagon spokesman told me, "They don't count."

Kerry has made a colossal mistake by continuing to defend his October 2002 vote authorizing President Bush's invasion of Iraq.
<SNIP>

[blm]

1. Sorry, Helen. Voting for the authority with war as last resort

is still the responsible position.

Being AGAINST the WAY Bush broke his promises to go to war only after pursuing other diplomatic measures is still the reponsible position.

[wurzel]

12. Voting authority for war to Bush is not a responsible position.

Bush was known to have a private agenda. He was known to part of the extreme rightwing. He was known to be a liar. He was known to be incompetent. It was a mistake and Kerry should acknowledge that.

[bbmykel]

16. Were those who voted against the resolution irresponsible?

It would follow from your logic.

[blm]

18. No. But those lawmakers who were negotiating for a BETTER resolution

that called for weapons inspections FIRST and disallowed Bush to extend military force into Iran and Syria in exchange for their vote deserve something more than the sophomoric, simplistic condemnations from the terminally tunnel-visioned media and the parrots who repeat them.

[bpilgrim]

21. not if you would have voted the same way knowing what we now know

ah, but what can we expect from a politician :shrug:

peace

[seventhson]

2. I agree eom

[seventhson]

3. with Helen that is

nt

[HereSince1628]

4. Currently, I'd just say its disappointing for a colossal number

of antiwar voters...think of all those folks who marched in protest in all those places. I hope they all remember the next 665 reasons to dump Bush

[Larkspur]

5. The key point, per Helen Thomas

Kerry is mistaken on a key point. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president does not have that sole right to declare war. Despite its mindless default, that right still belongs to Congress.

Bush should have been forced to come back to Congress to prove that a military invasion was necessary and then Congress could have asked bush what was his post-Saddam plan. Biden-Lugar amendment would have forced Bush to come back to Congress BEFORE launching the invasion and that is why Bush opposed B-L.

IWR was Congress's shirking of it's duty and a vote for the imperial presidency.

[indigobusiness]

7. Kerry could be setting a trap with this

wait for the debates...

ooh, I can hardly wait.

[Old and In the Way]

8. I agree

"Bush should have been forced to come back to Congress to prove that a military invasion was necessary "

My question is, where was the Republican majority holding this pResident accountable? They are one's that control the Congressional legislative agenda....they are the true cowards who have rolled over and failed to keep this criminal administration in check.

Republicans had an 8 year Inquisition investigating Clinton for busted land deals, filegate, travelgate, and consensual sex....but not one investigation into the real criminal actions of their Party's selected Incompetent-in-Chief.

[Larkspur]

10. Why aren't the Democrats making a case for Impeachment against Bush &

Cheney? Even with IWR's scanty legal requirements, Bush trangressed them and LIED to Congress about why he wanted to go to war.

If the Dem leaders had political courage and their wits about them, they could have pressured the Republican leadership to deal with Bush's incompetence and warmongering. Along with the rising tide of American dead coming back and Iraqi insurgency rising, Democratic pressure on the Repukes would have put them in the position of regurgitating their own lies and being made to look like fools, like Chavez has done to his opposition.

I admire Hugo Chavez more and more each day. He has certainly helped his opposition to marginalized themselves with their own stupidity and anti-democratic statements. That's what could have happened to Bush and the Repukes here in the USA, if the Democratic Party actually had a strong and imaginative leadership.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Democrats pressure the Republican leadership?

DeLay, Hastert, Frist? You're kidding, right?

Sure, Democrats could scream impeachment....it wouldn't mean much and it would be distorted back on us as those "out of power, terrorist-appeasing, wild-eyed Democrats are trying to bring this country down" by the Republican owned mainstream media. If you can convince 70% of Americans that Iraq was behind 9/11, it couldn't be that difficult to convince 70% of them that Democrats are a clear and present danger ot this country, would it?

Now if a "respected" member or members of the Congressional Republican delegation made that call, or better, voted impeachment legislation out of committee, then I think you'd see see a House/Senate Democrats more than willing to work on a bi-partisan effort to pass that legislation.

Why do you keep giving a pass on the Republican majority...does it make you feel better to bash Democrats?

[Larkspur]

15. Because the Dem Leaders are giving the Repuke Leadership a pass

when they don't challenge them and then blame progressives when they lose elections.

Gulf of Tonkin, a Democratic debacle authored by LBJ, a Democratic President, could have been used by the Dem leadership as a mea culpa to pressure the Repuke leadership to pass Biden-Luger or something else stronger than IWR and tell the American people that IWR was Gulf of Tonkin II. Sen. Byrd made that camparison, he voted for Tonkin I, but Byrd was abandoned by the Dem leadership. Scott Ritter, a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, was publicly challenging Bush's war claims at that time. Ritter had credibility that the Dem Leaders could have used. Ritter also met with Kerry personally, but Ritter was ignored. I think that Ritter was ignored because the Dem Leaders had their own agenda, one that supported Israel's Middle East ambitions.

[Old and In the Way]

17. So who are you voting for?

[Larkspur]

33. As I've said many times, I'm voting for Kerry

Read my signature line as to why.

[EST]

26. There's no way

you are going to get a senate with a majority of unprincipled bastards to impeach their own pet unprincipled bastard. Tain't gonna happen. Why do you think the rats are so scared of the democrats getting into a majority position? We, the pissed off people, are going to demand a house cleaning and no excuses. We, at that point have the hammer of saying "We brung you into this world, and, by gum, we can take you out."

[EST]

23. There really wasn't a repug majority in 2002.

There was still a huge popular crowd willing to give * the benefit of the doubt. The senators and representatives were all walking around with a**holes all apucker with the election coming up. Everybody trying please everybody else and nobody really wanting to challenge the president. (except for a few) And, after all, it was good 'ol Joe Lieberman who wrote the bill. The push for a decision was powerful and the congress was stampeded. Whoda thunk W was really as stupid and mendacious as he turned out and who really knew the dark, shadowy bunch behind all this was out for world domination. All those wonderful dedicated folks are political pukes, after all, and tend to be tone deaf when other politicians are accused of being the shabby human beings they really are. On top of all that was the major wound of what happened to Bill Clinton, and even though he wasn't guilty, all the democrats were guilty by association and anxious to please. (Again, except for a principled few)
The unfortunate result of this rolling over and playing dead was that the crazy bastards got the momentum they needed and there was no stopping them. The winner is the one who gets to write the history book. Kerry is awake, has principles, and, I'm convinced, has a plan. And we are free to happily and nervously bitch all we want, as long as we come through on election day. I love it!! (as long as we win)

[mourningdove92]

6. And if he had disavowed his vote,

the chants of FLIP FLOP would be deafening.

Lets face it, no matter what he says, what he does, what food he eats, when he gets his hair cut, ANYTHING he has ever said over the last 30 years, whatever his wife says, no matter what

SOME ONE WILL COMPLAIN and the right wing will rip it apart. NO matter what.

[Larkspur]

9. But Kerry was asked specifically, if he knew in Oct 2002 what he knows

now about Iraq -- not having WMD's, not being an imminent threat to the US, and Bush having no post-Saddam plan -- would he have changed his vote. He was given an out on the flip-flop charge in that question with the 20/20 hindsight phrase and he failed to see it.

Kerry may win this election, but he won't get the support of our allies with Iraq -- Helen Thomas: Kerry has a weak fallback position-- that he would have planned things differently before going to war and would have lined up more European allies. Knowing what they know now about the Bush fiasco, France and Germany are congratulating themselves for having the good sense to stay out of Iraq. And that lack of support along with rising insurgency will most likely handicap a Kerry Admin for 4 years.

[lastknowngood]

13. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat

them

[louis-t]

37. Hey, where have I heard

that before!

[creeksneakers2]

20. Exactly!

That's why Kerry shouldn't have answered the question at all. Kerry should have said:

"George Bush is asking me a question? How many questions has George Bush answered? How many press conference has he held? When was the last time he went somewhere where people didn't have to sign a loyalty oath to get in? When Bush starts answering my questions, I'll start answering his.

[bpilgrim]

22. so do the right thing

"SOME ONE WILL COMPLAIN and the right wing will rip it apart. NO matter what."

zactly

peace

[OneBlueSky]

11. Helen's right . . .

Kerry's position on Iraq sucks . . . why he made that statement is beyond me . . . he has a perfect out simply by saying that the mistake he made was believing the president . . . but for some reason unknown to me, he continues to insist that this war somehow has merit . . . baffling . . .

[blm]

19. Because he is not US. HE plans to be the next president using resolutions

as diplomatic tools, implementing them properly.

Amazing to me that so many of you cannot figure that ALL presidents NEED those tools and Kerry will need Republicans in congress to authorize resolutions in the near future.

He has always come into this debate with the confidence that he will BE that next president, while most of you want him to do what YOU would do. YOU have no plans to exercise executive power in the near future.

[bpilgrim]

25. and knowing what he knows now he still would have given WAR authority

to the neoCONs?

thats sounds ludicris to me but you think it projects 'confidence'?

i may have no plans on 'exercise executive power in the near future' but i do plan to help CHOOSE the one who will.

hope that still COUNTS for something...

peace

[blm]

27. The AUTHORITY for the president to take the steps NECESSARY first

BEFORE he went to war. When will it sink in that a RESOLUTION is a tool used BEFORE war?

The question posed was would you still vote for the IWR, not would you have gone to war the same way Bush did and ignore the guidelines of the IWR.

Geez...why do so many get sucked into the Bush mediawhore spin? Your assumption is EXACTLY what the vermin Bushites count on. By blaming the resolution and those who voted for it instead of Bush's failure to implement the IWR honestly, you all let Bush off the hook.

I think that is enormously, tragically stupid.

[bpilgrim]

28. KNOWING what we know NOW

means no one in their RIGHT MIND would've voted for it.

knowing what we NOW KNOW that iraq was NOT a THREAT means we could have FOCUSED our energies on UBL the REAL THREAT.

wtf is WRONG with THAT?

COMMON SENSE

peace

[blm]

32. Doesn't matter about the "now know"...the IWR, itself, was a PROPER TOOL.

If it had been implemented by a legitimate leader we would not have used military force. The VOTE for the IWR should be the same. Kerry remains AGAINST Bush's dishonest IMPLEMENTATION of the IWR.

By confusing the IWR with the decision to use force, too many are playing into Bush's hands.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Thankfully, Kerry has stayed consistent in recognizing that a resolution does not mean you automatically go to war.

You don't appreciate that distinction, but, some of us do.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Here's the problem bpilgrim.

Kerry says, I won't vote to support the Office of President because I don't trust Dimson.

Now what happens when he's President and there is a real compelling reason to ask for a Senate Resoluton to back his authority? The Republicans, remembering his precedent, say, "I won't vote to support the Office of President because I don't trust Kerry." Is this how we want our future Presidents to be hamstrung on issues of this country's national security?

The real tragedy here is that Bush destroyed the bi-partisan trust between President and Congress on issues of national security, by lying about the facts to demand an IWR vote and then violating the conditional clauses that this Resolution granted. Bush used his power, not for the nation's well being, but to further his narrow economic and political agenda.

If the Republican cowards who control Congress would grow backbones, they'd be voting Articles of Impeachment out of sub-committee about now.

[bpilgrim]

30. the question wasn't about 'TRUST' it was about what we now KNOW

but who the fuck am i kidding we all KNEW before the war and so DID HE but he voted for it AND he would do it all over again... just fucking GREAT.

ah, well... why should i expect anything different from a politician?

it's just politics, right?

sorry for the cranky rant, please don't take it personally OAITW :toast:

peace

[Larkspur]

34. But Bush's lies were known before the IWR vote

That's why two thirds of the House Democrats voted against it. That's why Scott Ritter, a conservative who had voted for Bush in 2000 met with Kerry to personally inform him that Saddam had no WMD's.

Kerry's IWR vote is also about Congress' abdication of their duty to perform checks and balances on the Executive branch. Kerry followed the Republicans on voting for IWR and thus abdicated his Congressional responsibility to perform checks and balances on the President.

I oppose an imperial presidency, no matter which party controls the executive branch. Our Founding Fathers warned against promoting an imperial presidency:

...war is "the true nurse of executive aggrandizement,"

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
James Madison, 4th President of the United States

Let's remember that it was Democrats, who mistook a rebellion against European colonialism for a battle against Communism and were the first to escalate the Vietnam War. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was sold by President Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, to Congress with lies, was wrong and so was 2002 IWR.

[Virginian]

35. I'm not sure if I remember exactly...

The timing of the vote on the resolution was after 9/11/2002. That was about the time Dubya quit saying the word "Osama" and started replacing it with the word "Saddam". It was a sly morphing of the message that had the country thinking we were out to get "Osaddama" or someone like that. I still think some of his followers think Saddam was flying one of the planes that hit the WTC.

The timing of that vote was critical. Bush was using his "good will" with the electorate to get this passed. I don't know if any congressmen or senators who voted against the resolution were reelected that November. I know it was an election issue because the Republicans scheduled it to occur right before the election so they could use it as an election issue.

Sometimes you have to go along to get along and live to fight another day. It was a resolution to show support for the President, it was not an authorization for war even though the administration would like for everyone to think it was. If some of those who voted for the resolution had voted against it, they would no longer be around to try to fix what this administration has done. They would have been replaced by more neo-con "yes" men who are willing to follow Bush* into the recesses of hell if that is what it takes. They wouldn't have objected to anything Bush threw their way and we would have bunches of neo-con judges controlling our lives. In addition, there would be no dissent today as it would be stiffled by even more dominance by oppressive conservatives; we would each think we were alone in opposing the war. Haliburton would be overcharging with no one to account to; the Pentagon would not be releasing any casulty numbers from the war; Farenheight 9/11 would never have shown on any screen within the US. Sometimes we have to pick and choose our battles. We can't win them all, so we have to select the ones that are most important.

John Kerry knowing then what he knows today doesn't necessarily mean that the American public would have known then what they know today. Fewer seats were lost to the neo-cons because of this compromise. I think Hillary spoke for all of those Democrats voting for the resolution when she said for Bush* to use his authority responsibly. Too bad for all of us he didn't heed that advice.

[Larkspur]

36. Wrong!

If some of those who voted for the resolution had voted against it, they would no longer be around to try to fix what this administration has done.

The 2002 November election results showed that those Democrats who sided with Bush on the war, who looked Bush-lite and were in "Swing" states lost to their Republican challenger. Those that opposed the war for the most part won. Sen. Paul Wellstone voted against IWR and got a 10% lead over his Repuke challenger before he died in the plane crash. Wellstone most likely would have won re-election had he lived. The 2002 November elections, thanks to the IWR vote and the Dem leaders failing to make corporate corruption stick to Bush, were a boon to Bush and the Republicans. The Democrats lost their meager control over the Senate, a control that a moderate Republican, Sen. Jim Jeffords of VT, gave them. Jeffords showed more courage in leaving the Republican Party than all of our Dem leaders combined.

FYI. The IWR vote was cast in the Senate on Oct. 10, 2002. Al Gore gave his much anticipated and touted speech on "Iraq and the War on Terrorism" on Sep. 23, 2002. In that speech Gore advised Congress to oppose IWR.

[Virginian]

39. Your memory is much better than mine.

I did not remember whether those who voted for the resolution won or lost their elections. Oct 10 is a perfect date for a vote to use as a wedge issue in an election.
I guess the electorate figured if it votes like a Republican and talks like a Republican, we might as well have a real Republican. But the House and Senate Democrats didn't know ahead of time how this would all be spun by the Rove machine.

Personally, I am against the war and am trying to reconcile my feelings with Kerry's vote. I know there was a sense of unity that was brought about by 9/11. Was that still in force for the Dems at that time? Wasn't that a time when we had to keep our mouths shut or be called unpatriotic?

Yes, I do think Sen. Jeffords showed a lot of courage to tell Bush* he was too heavy handed and would end up a "One term President". Any Republican who will stand up against Bush has courage. I may not agree with Pat Buchannan, but I do have a little more respect for him because he has kept his own opinions instead of following the flock. But, then again, maybe they just forgot to put him on their mailing list of daily talking points.

I was angry at the Democrats after the 2000 election that they were silent about Florida. I thought they were a little too quiet for the 2002 mid-terms, too. I was very glad to find this website and discover that there were others like me who believed Bush* should never have been handed the keys to the executive mansion.
I was appalled to discover (through DU) that PNAC existed. I couldn't believe that they even had a website where just anyone could see what they stood for. That is one of the most frightening parts of all this Bush* fiasco. You can actually check off the PNAC goals as Bush* meets them.

[EST]

24. Pardon me for being so mouthy on this subject,

but isn't it very obvious Kerry wants, and needs, in this era of terrorist instability, the option of congress handing HIM the power to go to war, if necessary. And it may become necessary, especially now that we are viewed as the real source of instability in the world. The image of being the crazy boy, as anyone who has been picked on in grade school knows, who is going to hit back hard even if he's going to be whipped can be very useful. The thing is, we need someone who is very sane in charge of that power, not our own special radical religious cleric*.

[Pastiche423]

31. When I grow up, I want to be just like Helen

Ms. Thomas not only knows our country's history, world history and our Constitution, but she's lived a lot of it.

Her statement was Right On!

Tonight I went to a Bill of Rights meeting to discuss the Patriot Act Part Deux. One of the courses we decided to take, was educating our community on our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. An older man (70ish) in the group admitted that he read them for the 1st time in his life, only a few months ago.

From some of the responses on this thread, I would surmise a number of posters need to read it for the 1st time or read it again.

Article I, Section 8, inpart, reads:

The Congress shall have Power To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Check it out! It says Congress has the power to declare war. It does NOT say the president has the power to declare war.

Yep, that's what is says, right there in our constitution.

So, to Mr. Kerry, I call bullshit on your, "I voted to give the president the authority to go to war". You shirked your solemn, congressional duty when you gave away that declaration, before a case was even made for war.

You did it for one reason and one reason only, Mr. Kerry. You did it not for the good of your constintuents, or We the People. You did it for your own political expediency.

Own it!

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.