Did Kerry renounce his IWR vote ?

[jaysunb]

I've read a couple post that seem to allude to it, but I must have missed it if he did...

[babylonsister]

1. Here's text of a speech he gave today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5177000

[Demobrat]

2. No.

But he was against it before he was for it.....

[Mass]

4. Read his speech from today

[TayTay]

5. Nice to see you parrot the RW talking points

Are we to expect this on the Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich remarks as well.

It's amazing how many Dems seem to be Repubs in terms of how they talk.

[Demobrat]

8. No.

They were against the war even when it wasn't easy.

[TayTay]

9. Riiiiight!

I got a birdge to sell you in Broklyn.

Hahahahaha!

[Demobrat]

12. They weren't against the war all along?

That was Kucinich screaming for 40,000 more troops? And PRO-war rallies Dean was leading? Wish I would have known. I wouldn't have shown up.

[TayTay]

14. The Bush people held rallies FOR the war

Perhaps the rallies that you and I saw were different.

Again, nice parrotting of the Right wing talking points. The Repubs are probably very proud.

[Demobrat]

19. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Anybody who thinks Kerry, Clinton and old what's-his-face from the Rose Garden, oh yeah, Gephardt are political cowards must be - a Right-Winger of course.

Whatever.

[TayTay]

22. Agreed

You points are wek. A Whatever is the right response.

[msongs]

33. what is a wek point? is it part of a birdge? nt

[pacalo]

11. Thank you...

thank you, thank you, thank you!

:toast:

[Sterling]

30. What I find more disturbing his how many

Dem pols seem to be like Repukes in terms of WHAT THEY DO.

[KG]

6. um, wait a minute

I thought he for it before he was against it? I'm soooo cornfused!

[Demobrat]

15. News flash.

Apparently, he's against it now again. Or against it finally, or something. Oh well, better to bring up the rear of the parade than to stay home.

[Sterling]

29. And how did he lose with such a clear message like that.

If Americans were actually given a clear alternative to Bush the would chose it. I fear most of our parties leaders are now just going through the motions to perpetuate some sort of "bi partisan" agenda.

[wisteria]

36. Boring!!!!!!!! And Wrong!!!!!!! n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Will Pitt posted Kerry's speech

in its entirety. It is a speech he's giving today. If you read it, you find out that Kerry basically says that he was lied to, and, if he had been given all the facts, would not have voted for it-along with a whole lot of others.

[electropop]

7. I hope this is the beginning of a trend

Heard a story on NPR last night about Dems admitting Bush tricked them, in order to explain their pro-war votes. This is the only acceptable course for those who voted for the war. Otherwise, they're out, along with the GOP trash, in 2006.

[wishlist]

10. Yes, says he would not have voted to invade if he knew what he knows now

Here is text of section of his speech today:

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abuse so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise."

[agingdem]

16. About damn time!

[liberalpragmatist]

25. He said that before the election too

Admittedly, he hasn't until now alluded to the fact that he wouldn't have voted "yes" on the IWR.

But he's been saying for well over a year and for months prior to the election that he would NOT have gone to war were he president.

Don't you remember during the debate when Kerry said in response to Bush harping on the "voted for it before I voted against"-line:

"I made a mistake in the way I talked about the war. The president made a mistake in going to war. Which is worse?"

And in September '04:

the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way.

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq?

My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

[KnowerOfLogic]

28. Didn't he say that he *would* have voted the same way, even if he knew

then what he knows now (then)?

[wisteria]

40. No, he didn't. This is one of the most misquoted quotes.n/t

[Mairead]

62. Yes, he did. See this Findlaw article

Kerry Stands by His Iraq War Vote
And Stands, With Bush, Against Constitutional Principles
By MICHAEL C. DORF (Prof. of Constitutional Law, Columbia U.)
----
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004

Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. (emph. added)

Bush and his supporters have pointed to Kerry's statement as evidence that the Senator is trying to have it both ways: How can he criticize the President's performance as Commander-in-Chief, if he also stands by the decision to go to war?

Kerry has a good response to the charge of straddling. He says he has consistently criticized the manner in which the President has conducted the war, rather than the Congressional decision to authorize force in the first place. Although Bush derides this distinction as "nuance," it is hardly a matter of hairsplitting. The President and his supporters insult the intelligence of American voters by suggesting that the distinction between means and ends is necessarily bogus.

(snip)


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040818.html

Michael C. Dorf is the Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law. His dozens of scholarly articles and essays have appeared in the leading law journals. With Laurence H. Tribe, he is the co-author of the book On Reading the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 1991). He is the editor of and wrote the Introduction to the book Constitutional Law Stories (Foundation Press, 2004), which tells the stories behind fifteen leading constitutional cases.

[sandnsea]

46. the vote, not the war

He said he would have voted to give Bush authority, but he never said he would have gone to war. The vote and the war are not the same and he continues to make that distinction in the speech he gave today. I do not know when people are going to be as hard on Bush for actually starting the damned war as they are on Kerry who has done nothing but criticize Bush and his "rush to war" since Jan 2003.

[sandnsea]

44. "give them the authority" that's what he said, NOT invade

He never said he would have gone to war when Bush did, which he restates in this speech.

[reality based]

13. He issued this mea culpa:

"I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape
of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, 'enough blame to go
around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes
of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching
ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of
American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to
our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go
from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to
say so plainly and unequivocally."

[jaysunb]

18. Thanks

I've been waiting a long time to hear this from him. Now, if we can get a few more of our so called liberal Democrats to own up, we may have a shot a getting our country back in 06.

[Sterling]

31. Own up? As in leave politics??

That is all I am interested in seeing anyone who even tactitly supported Iraqnam doing.

[wisteria]

38. Why should one leave politics for voting to protect our country

when it was based on lies told by this administration? Those who voted for the IWR did so with no malice. Your being ridiculous. There was no forethought that things were going to turn out like they have nor did those who voted to give Bush the power believe he would abuse it.

[jaysunb]

50. I'm torn on that one...

Idealistically ,I really kind of agree w/ Sterling on whether they should take a hike or better yet, be booted out of office. ( 56% of this country, and the vast majority of the world did not agree w/ attacking Iraq, so what the hell was wrong with their vision ??? )

But, at the same time, I've seen what happens when large groups of people need to be brought up to speed in a short time, most often , creating little time or opportunity to build coalitions and create progressive legislation. Think term limits. Very bad idea !

Wholesale house cleaning ? Even a worse idea.

[greatauntoftriplets]

17. I could have told him he was making an enormous mistake.

That'll teach him not to listen to me.

[Demobrat]

20. Lots of people could have - and did

but he was too afraid of being called unpatriotic by Karl Rove to listen.

[wisteria]

39. i don't think so!!!! Where did you get your information. Gee, did

you share your intelligence with him, is that what you did?

[KG]

21. he was always against the war. and we've always been at war with east asia

:eyes:

[greatauntoftriplets]

23. I wish I had saved all my posts from those days....

suggesting the vote and the war were akin to opening Pandora's Box. Sadly, I was correct.

[Demobrat]

24. You, me, Dean, Kucinich ...

all of us unpatriotic ones were right all along. But we knew that. Wish it felt better.

[frogmarch]

26. How did you all know

you were right? Were you privy to information that Kerry and the others were not?

I'd sincerely like to know how you knew.

[Demobrat]

27. The same way a mother who catches her 4-year old

with chocolate frosting all over his face knows he's lying when he says he didn't touch the cake. We just paid attention to what was right in front of us.

[Sterling]

32. God, how could you not know?

In fact if someone was dense enough not to know they need to stop discussing politics in public know before they remove any doubt how dense they are.

It has always been clear that Bush and his ilk are thieves and lier's. If you needed an open admission of what they intended you should have read:

PNAC

We really need people that are a lot more on the ball in office and the majority of our 08 likely runs are not up to the task.

[wisteria]

41. Our politicians can not use heresy, articles and unproven

motives and conspiracy theories to make law and vote on issues of country and state. Monday Morning Quarterbacking doesn't cut it.

[ErisFiveFingers]

35. I knew when I watched the UN presentation...

And read their "public report". The evidence was laughably flimsy. Since this was their "best case to show the world", they would have to pull out all the stops... and they showed mockups of what a lab *might* look like, satellite photos of where chemical weapons *could* be stored, pictures of missiles that *could* be used for chemical weapons, etc. Too many hypothetical conjectures, stacked up one on top of the other.

It's not an issue of being privy to additional information, it's an issue that even those who *were* privy to information could not make a reasonable case, based on all of the information that they had in their posession.

[Garbo 2004]

37. Perhaps an even better question how is it that others with the same info

Kerry had voted against the IWR in the Senate?

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Kerry should have remembered it too.

[Jacobin]

42. Wham!!! BAM

thank you.

[karynnj]

71. Dean in 2002? think again

[sandnsea]

48. I wish I had the "what if they find WMD" posts

Because this place is absolutely full of shit when everybody says they "all knew". The "what if they find WMD" posts were rampant on DU in spring of 2003, far more than those who "knew".

[Arkana]

34. Bang.

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq.

This is what I've been trying to tell people--Bush lied. Kerry made the mistake of believing him. This is his mea culpa.

[Selatius]

43. What's the fucking point? Bush would have INVADED with or without IWR

There is no escaping the fact that Bush Co. wanted to kick the war machine into high gear even before the damn fires were put out and bodies collected at the WTC and the Pentagon. He was on the war path, and even if the IWR was killed, he was probably going to pull the fucking trigger anyway.

[BurtWorm]

45. He put it very cagily.

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise."


I distinctly remember him saying last year--during one of the debates?--that he would *not* have changed his vote to authorize force in the event that certain thresholds were crossed, even if he knew then that there were no WMDs. It was a very confusing position. But here he seems to be saying he would not "give them the authority."

[sandnsea]

49. The President DEPLOYS TROOPS

I really do not understand what is so complicated. BUSH SAID it was a vote to prevent war, to keep the peace. It WAS NOT a vote for war, it was authority to use force as a last resort, which Bush "abused so badly". How can the fact that ONLY the President can deploy troops possibly be confusing. Even a full Declaration of War would end up with Bush having the final authority to deploy troops. That's the way the Constitution works.

[BurtWorm]

52. Take it up with Kerry.

He's the one saying "I would not have gone to war."

The original question was, did he renounce his IWR vote. The answer is that he seems to have, but he did it cagily.

[sandnsea]

54. "I would not" is cagily???

:crazy:

[BurtWorm]

66. It would take away any doubt if he said, "It was wrong to vote for IWR."

"I would vote against the resolution."

He divorces his action from the predicate. That's cagey, yes.

[LittleClarkie]

47. I wonder why we don't hear about the others who voted for it as much

Nobody says "Fuck that Reid! He should resign as Minority Leader until he renounces his vote!"

I wonder why.

[Mountainman]

51. Maybe because he isn't making a public pronouncement on every news item

that happens to come up.

I don't support the man anymore for two reasons. He will not say that he along with all of us here knew Bush was lying and that he voted for IWR because he was afraid of the backlash against him.

Also because he said that every vote would be counted and he meant after the election was over, I thought he meant they would be counted when it could have made a difference.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Oh, is that why I saw Reid on CSPAN today

With others of course, touting the Dems plan for National Security and Iraq and such. Because he doesn't make public pronouncements?

And I hear calls often that Dems should get themselves on television or some other media to make their case. But nobody told me about the fine print, which apparently reads "except for Kerry. He can fuck off."

Now if you will just point me to the thousands upon thousands of statements I must have missed when Kerry was making public pronouncements on ever news item that happens to come along, I'll quite happily get caught up on my Kerry readings.

Pretend it's somebody you like, and look at the speech again. It's a good one, eh?

Then go to any Senator's website and see if they don't also make public pronouncements on most major subjects. It's a Senator's thang.

[radio4progressives]

55. Not really. He used typical politik speech avoiding direct renouncement

but saying that he takes responsbilility for his part in the decision (paraphrasing).

that's not exactly renouncing his vote in my mind.

[frogmarch]

56. Hey, Sterling

Regarding your post #32: Your first paragraph was a personal attack against me. I don't appreciate it.

I've spent months reading at the PNAC website, thank you very much, and yes, we all knew what the bush bastards were about. Powell's UNSC presentation raised questions, though. Did Saddam have WMDs and nuclear capabilities? Not one of the senators (at least not the Democratic ones) knew the answer, but given Saddam's record, they suspected he did, especially in light of Powell's "proof." Those who voted yes on the IWR believed Saddam needed to be pressured into allowing the inspectors back into Iraq, and that the threat of war would do the trick. They were naive enough to believe Bush would keep his promise not to wage war except as a last resort, and to gather allies to help if war turned out to be the only answer.

I'm not the one being dense, Sterling.

[jaysunb]

57. Sorry Frogie

I can't speak for Sterling, but I personally still can't believe anybody would have fallen for the obviously false rhetoric Bushco was spouting in 04. I won't say they ( You ? ) were dense, but Ray Charles could have seen through the bullshit.

If Kerry did admit his vote was a mistake, it's a sign that he doesn't exercise good judgment, or he did the politically expedient thing....both of which disqualifies him from those that would be considered " political leaders. "

[Mairead]

58. Kerry's trying to '1984' his record, rewriting history. Here's the proof

Kerry Stands by His Iraq War Vote
And Stands, With Bush, Against Constitutional Principles
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004

Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. (emph.added)

Bush and his supporters have pointed to Kerry's statement as evidence that the Senator is trying to have it both ways: How can he criticize the President's performance as Commander-in-Chief, if he also stands by the decision to go to war?

Kerry has a good response to the charge of straddling. He says he has consistently criticized the manner in which the President has conducted the war, rather than the Congressional decision to authorize force in the first place. Although Bush derides this distinction as "nuance," it is hardly a matter of hairsplitting. The President and his supporters insult the intelligence of American voters by suggesting that the distinction between means and ends is necessarily bogus.

(snip)


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040818.html

[seabeyond]

59. and you hold in faith media interpretation of kerry words

regardless of seeing media fuck kerry regardless during the campaign over and over and over. changing his words to fit the storyline.

there is plenty of post were kerry's actual words are there for you to read. without media and repug interpretation

[Mairead]

60. Findlaw? I've never seen anyone impeach findlaw. If you think you

have evidence that it's biased, how about showing that evidence so that everyone can evaluate it. Right now you're trying to get by on handwaved innuendo, which is unacceptable. So please, if you think you can successfully impeach findlaw, have a go.

[seabeyond]

61. people have put documentation after documentation up

you find it. there are about four maybe five threads on kerry, iwr and all he said thru out. and his own interpretation, not anothers

[Mairead]

63. No, sorry, that won't wash. You cannot handwave a rewrite of history

and expect to be taken seriously. Most people actually REMEMBER -because of the stunned disbelief they felt- his statement that he would have voted the same way.

Rewriting history is just NOT acceptable.

[seabeyond]

67. it would be waste of time. just like with limbaugh listen brother

and fox watching father. a total waste of time. doesnt matter what i present, in the end, you would dismiss. probably wouldnt even read

[Mairead]

75. Unless you can come up with PUBLISHED material from a

reputable or even shaky source anywhere on the political spectrum, that was (a) written at that time and (b) backs up your assertion...then you're right, it won't matter.

That's because if he HAD said it, there would have been SOME pro- or anti-Kerry publication SOMEwhere that would have reported it at that time. But there is no such publication.

So no matter how much you want him to have said it, and want us to accept that he said it---he didn't say it. If that's a problem for you, I'm sorry.

[MadHound]

64. Yes, kinda, sorta, in a backhanded way.

He said that he was misled, lied to, and that if he had known the truth beforehand, he wouldn't have voted as he did.

I still have some major problems with his position now. First off, while he was being misled and lied to by the Bush administration, millions upon millions of people knew the truth of what was going down, and we're screaming loud and long for him and the rest of our so called leaders to vote against the IWR. Millions, both here and abroad, were out in the streets protesting, screaming and yelling for him and the rest to vote against the IWR. Messages to both houses of Congress were running 268-1 against the IWR What, he didn't hear them, he didn't check his messages? How is it that all of these millions of people saw through the Bush smokescreen, yet Kerry was somehow befuddled? Is he truly that stupid? If so, then he should resign immediately because anybody that stupid is unfit for any office in the land.

Polls at the time showed that the vast majority of the American people didn't want to anything regarding Iraq until the inspectors finished their job. Didn't Kerry check these polls? Didn't he think that this was a sane, sensible position?

His main job duty is to represent the collective will of his constituents, and his constituents were overwhelmingly against the IWR. Yet he went ahead, against the collective will of his constituents, and voted for the IWR. This is a massive failure in performing the duties of his job, and quite frankly he should be fired. If I, or any of the rest of us, failed to do our primary job duty in such a spectacular and deadly way, we would be gone, yesterday. He should be held to no less a standard.

And while he is trying to do this mealy mouthed exoneration of his endorsement of war now, it was only a few months ago that he voted yes on continuing to fund this illegal, immoral war. Kerry, if you felt you were lied and misled than, why are you still continuing to endorse this war now by funding it?

I'm sorry, but this is more mealy mouthed bullshit on Kerry's part, possibly to exonerate his actions, perhaps to set the groundwork for an '08 run. Either way, he has lost my support unless he comes out and speaks straight, and follows up his word with actions. Until then, fuckem.

[Mairead]

65. "He said if he had known the truth he wouldn't have voted as he did"

No, that's what he says today. But that's an attempt at re-writing history. What he said a year ago, to the stunned dismay of all, was that, EVEN IF HE HAD KNOWN, he would have voted the same way. And that's not, as some people here now are trying to claim, a 'misunderstanding' or 'misquoting', because at the time (as the article by Prof. Dorf, cited in my other posts, makes plain) he defended that statement when attacked by BushCo--he didn't disclaim it.

[MadHound]

68. I hear you!

I saw that you folks were making that point, and I didn't want to belabor it.

It is amazing how willing people are to lie, both to themselves and others, all in the name of partisan politics. Amazing, in a nauseating sort of way.

And since then, he voted to continue to fund the war. Suuuure John, tell me again how anti-war you are:eyes:

[karynnj]

73. Unless he were saying out now, which he hasn't

he can't logically vote against funding, especially when correctly complaining that the soldiers don't have suitable armor.

[MadHound]

79. Then quite frankly, he should be saying out now!

That is his duty, to represent the collective will of his constituents. And given the poll numbers, the majority of Americans want us to come home ASAP. Therefore he should stop the funding and get us out now.

Instead, he is once again mealy mouthing around, wanting to have his cake and eat it too, setting himself up for another possible run in '08.

Sorry but I don't give free passes to warmongers, especially when they're talking the talk but not walking the walk. Either one is for this war or against it, and actions should follow words.

[halobeam]

69. This is interpretation... that's the difference

between how Kerry saw his reasoning for voting the way he did, and how people are interpreting his interpretation of his vote and his explanation of such vote.

"He said if he had known the truth he wouldn't have voted as he did"... how does that contradict him saying, he voted to authorize the president to make this decision, and trusted the president, which now he knows, lied to him?

It's two separate things that are getting mixed up.

1. his vote. He said he'd vote the same way again, because he believes in the president having the authority to go to war, AS A LAST RESORT.

2. the question, knowing what you know now, would you vote the same way again? That question was INTERPRETED literally by Kerry. Kerry's answer: YES. His reasoning is consistent with his interpretation of why he voted yes in the first place. He would still vote to authorize the president to have the authority to go to war, BUT AS A LAST RESORT AS PROMISED.

3. Lastly. Kerry states NOW... "today" as you say, that if he had KNOWN THE TRUTH then he would've voted NO.

Number 3 is a separate statement from 1 and 2. NOT contradictory. Numbers one and two do not presume that Bush was not telling the truth.

What is so hard to understand about this? I don't get why these separate quest/answers are considered contradictory vs. separate lines of questioning.

That's my two cents. Maybe only worth that to some folks, but nonetheless, I wanted to join in on the conversation.

[jaysunb]

70. Thank you for this

but it sure seems rather confusing.

[Mairead]

76. The problem is that he's trying to re-write history.

Lastly. Kerry states NOW... "today" as you say, that if he had KNOWN THE TRUTH then he would've voted NO.

No, he's saying that HE SAID THAT A YEAR AGO. In fact, a year ago he said exactly the opposite: that he still would have voted yes. He's trying to re-write his history.


"BUT AS A LAST RESORT AS PROMISED"

How stupid would someone have to be to trust Bush, given Bush's record? Would you have trusted Bush, given the information publicly available about his 50+ years of total untrustworthiness? Do you really think Kerry is that stupid?

[MadHound]

78. Well, as for as point one goes,

The president has always had the authority to go to war, with the approval of Congress. It is built into the Constitution. Now then, was Kerry voting to overturn this Constitutional check and balance? If so, then Kerry's vote is still wrong. If not, then the whole IWR was an exercise in redundancy. Thus the only possible way to interpret this is that this was an authorization, whether as a first or last resort, for Bush to go to war in Iraq.

But my main beef with this vote, and this concerns all represenatives who voted in favor of the IWR, is that by voting in favor of it, they were failing in their prime job duty, ie to represent the collective will of their constituents. And believe me, their constituents were speaking, loudly. As I said earlier, the messages to the Hill were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions of people, both here at home and abroad, were out in the streets saying NO. Poll after poll was showing that the vast majority of Americans were wanting to wait on committing to any action until after the inspectors finished their job. And yet Kerry and others went against the collective will of their constituents, and voted for war instead. This is a massive failing on their part, and I submit that if you and I committed such a massive failure at our places of work, we would be fired. So why should we continue to reward anybody who failed so badly? Accountability has to start somewhere.

And quite frankly, if Kerry was so badly duped by Bushco, then I submit that he is entirely to stupid and gullible to be in office. C'mon, you knew what Bushco was up to, I knew what Bushco was up to, millions upon millions of people around the country and the world knew what Bushco was up to, yet a man who is supposedly so intelligent and worldly somehow got duped by the two brain cell chimp in chief? I call BS. I think that Kerry is simply trying to provide cover for himself and the other warmongers who voted to take us to war. Sure, he was lied to, but does that mean one is supposed to believe the liar? Puhleeze:eyes:

[jaysunb]

80. Very well said !

:toast:

[karynnj]

72. The Grand Canyon statement was a gaffe

Possibly because he didn't hear the question proberly or because he was tired and gave a stock answer to an oft asked question, not recognising that he was asked anything differently.

But this was a ONE time occurance in the midst of many many comments that said the reason was fear of WMD. Having worked as a statistician for years, if all my data point except one point to one conclusion, I would not throw out all the data that is consistent and rely on the one outlier.

[NYCGirl]

74. A serious one. As Jon Stewart said on TDS when he played the clip:

"Are you TRYING to lose the election?"

[Mairead]

77. No, the 'didn't hear properly' won't wash. He consistently defended

that position later. If he really had thought he was answering a different question, he would have immediately disclaimed and repudiated his answer within a day at most. He didn't.