I love John Kerry but goddamit - he supported the Iraq War.

[ourbluenation]

Same with Hillary, Edwards, Biden and Dodd. Increasingly, I'm getting more and more angry with those who supported this war and their ridiculous attempts to dance around it. I don't think they really did support it, which means they were too chicken shit to speak out. Deep down - that's what I think about Kerry. I love him, I do, but I'm over him for national office.

Gore 08.

[killerbush]

1. Watch how many people give Kerry a free pass, and

Lambaste a certain Connecticut Democrat for supporting it too.

[Mass]

14. May be because the Connecticut senator still thinks that we were

right to go there and is still supporting Bush.

[killerbush]

29. Why give Kerry a free pass, and not Lieberman??

[Mass]

37. No free pass. I think he was wrong, but Lieberman is STILL wrong,.

Three years later. And contrarely to Kerry, he thinks this war is the right war at the right place. Sorry, I think there is some major difference, whether you like it or not.

[killerbush]

42. I see no difference in How both Kerry and Lieberman voted

Both said yes to the war, along with 22 other Democrats. Now somehow many people give Kerry a free pass for what essentially was a flip-flop. Is Lieberman right for his continued support for the war, NO!!, but he hasn't flipoped like so many others have. And you watch, by the summer, Hillary will flip and back the war opponets.

[Mass]

46. I prefer that he flip-flopped and took the right position. Too bad

Lieberman cant find the right way. I think we would forgive him his flip-flop.

[killerbush]

96. That's bullshit

No one would forgive Lieberman if he flipped. They would find something else to smear the man with.

[neoblues]

61. There are times...

when the "spin technique" of calling a change in opinion a "flip-flop" is inappropriate.

Indeed, there are instances when reversing one's public opinion (such as a coerced vote for war) is proper and good. This is an example of finally standing up for the right choice and it's the right thing to do even if technically it can be spun as being a "flip-flop".

The "vote for war" wasn't simple in any case. Congressmen were presented with false information from The President of the United States (they didn't know yet how untrustworthy he was). They were also subject to severe political pressure to go along. The actual vote was actually intended ONLY to give Bush the ability to credibly THREATEN WAR. That's what the President himself told them it was for. Alas, while he did use it to threaten IRAQ, he went ahead despite his promises not to actually use the authorization for war and MADE WAR.

Hence the Congressmen who, against their better judgement, caved in and agreed to authorize a diplomatic trick--were screwed to the wall when the President ACTUALLY USED the authorization to make war. Then, of course, anyone who complained was DECEPTIVELY made out to be a flip-flopper--though a literal interpretation did indicate an (a deceptive) apparent reversal.

One would think that anyone beyond a six-grader in elementary school, who finds out the facts before making a conclusion, would see and understand this trick by the Executive/President. Sure, the Congressmen fell for an obvious trick, but at the time they needed to give the President the power to threaten--what else could they do. They trusted an actual President to keep his word; yes they looked silly when he didn't keep his end of the bargain.

To the extent that most of them expressed support for the war--at the time, it seemed like the Patriotic thing to do. What they should be blamed for is that stupid error. It wasn't the right thing to do. Flip-flopping to against the war--that is NOT something to blame them for, and even their first vote can be understood if you understand how Congressmen decide how to cast their votes--they always negotiate (my vote for this if you'll vote for that, as well as attempting to do what appears to be the right thing politically to ensure reelection). It's certainly not something that always results in the "right" decisions--but there's always a reason. Trusting Bush not to invade, thinking supporting the President was the right thing for the country/right thing politically and believeing the crap the White House provided as intel... those were their mistaks.

[The Magistrate]

16. There Is A Little More To It Than That, Sir

Sen. Lieberman has spoken on numerous occassions explicitly stating the war should be pressed, that it is a proper policy, and has spoken in disfavor of criticism being directed at its conduct by the current regime. He is certainly entitled to express his opinions, but these expressions go a good deal farther than anything said by other leading Democratic figures such as Sen. Kerry and Sen. Clinton, and a man who says them must expect to be criticized in his turn by those who disagree with his views.

[killerbush]

115. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S

Is that easy for you to understand???

[welshTerrier2]

18. wrong and wrong again ...

Kerry was dead wrong to vote for the IWR!!! you call that a free pass???

the mistake he, and too many other Democrats made, was that they believed what bush was telling them ...

quelle surprise!!! he was lying ...

and "a certain Democrat"??? unlike Kerry, who seems to be making an effort to bring at least some pressure to end the war, Mr. Certain apparently has learned nothing other than what it feels like to have bush kiss him ...

[sandnsea]

105. Lieberman led the damned charge

HUGE difference between him and John Kerry and as far as I'm concerned Lieberman is a BIG part of the reason we haven't been able to craft a cohesive counter to Bush's endless stay the course drivel. I didn't support the gung ho pro-war Dems, and Lieberman was one, along with Hillary, Biden and Edwards. Frankly, I also didn't support the "Saddam's a serious threat but so what" Dems on the left. I supported Kerry because he was willing to draw firm lines to get inspectors in Iraq, but was also willing to exercise patience and push to let the inspectors finish their job. He also knows when you go to war you by god get the job done and if a mission isn't worth 1,000 lives, it's not worth 1 life. There are NO other Dems who saw the Iraq war from all angles as clearly as John Kerry.

[pnwmom]

2. He supported giving the President a bargaining tool. Bush, at

the time, promised that he wouldn't go in without justification. And he lied.

[havocmom]

6. Not too many people seem to remember the context, do they?

They attack DEMS who voted for a resolution based on what the WH told them about intel and that they would exhaust diplomatic resources before invading. They attack the DEMS more than the WH that manipulated intel and lied about intentions.

[ourbluenation]

17. BS - Many dems voted against it (see list) - why couldn't Kerry? Huh?

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL)
* Russell Feingold (D-WI)
* Robert Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* James Jeffords (I-VT)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[The Magistrate]

35. Some Senators, Ma'am

Made in very difficult circumstances a political calculation that turned out badly; things like that sum up to life....

"The future is hard to predict, on account of it ain't happened yet."

[ourbluenation]

48. He made the wrong decision then - i wish he had the insight of Russ F.

and the others who voted no.

[Blaukraut]

53. you mean the same Feingold who voted to confirm

Ashcroft and Roberts? Some insight.

[havocmom]

90. Touche`

Golly gee whillikers! EVERYBODY makes bad votes

another reason I am convinced no DEM Senator will win the Presidency anytime soon. They ALL have votes that will be taken out of context of the total bills and used against them in emmotion laden attack ads.

[Kashka-Kat]

152. yES THAT Russ Feingold - the one who tends to vote strictly on logic and

law, and not on political expediency.

Now, you may not LIKE his votes ... or his logic ... but you know exactly where he stands. No wishy washy dancing around in circles.

Everyone knew EXACTLY what that vote meant and why to not do it. Everyone knew that clause about negotiating was put in there only to give the Democrats who voted for it some cover== was widely discussed and reported at the time.

[Blaukraut]

170. sorry, his logic escapes me

He was the DECIDING (!!) vote on the judiciary committee to confirm Ashcroft, all because of Ashcroft's promise to nominate Ronnie White for a federal judgeship (which, incidentally Ashcroft reneged on).(don't believe me; look it up)
As to Roberts; again - where's the logic? Sure, Feingold stated 'impeccable credentials and respect for precendent' among other things, but Roberts lied in committee about being a member of the Federalist society, and even Feingold had to have known that.
My point was very simple; don't condemn one senator for an arguably bad vote when you aren't holding others to the same standard.
But hey, Kerry has to live by different rules than all the others, right? :eyes:

[pnwmom]

59. Because, as a candidate who would be running for President himself,

he probably thought that the President should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[blondeatlast]

55. Exactly--PLUS--Gore couldn't exactly vote for against the IWR, could he?

Right now, Gore's my leading man, but a BS argument is a BS argument and any possible candidate ought to be able to take the heat.

[DesertRat]

125. Kerry stood by his "yes" vote

I will never forget that day in Aug. '04 when Kerry was here in AZ at the Grand Canyon and defended his vote on the war. He said 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.

That statement took my breath away that day. I can't support him again for President.

[USA_1]

3. Will the Dems Platform Finally Say ...

ENOUGH - GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ, NOW!


It's long overdue!!!!!

[TayTay]

104. Unlikely, the Dems have not really formed a concensus on Iraq

There are a lot of moderate Dems who do not believe that withdrawal is the right response. They believe it shows weakness and will cause Dems to lose votes at the polls. There are even some who think that the civil war will get worse if the US does withdraw it's troops.

I disagree with this. I think that Iraq is in civil war and that the US cannot change that. It will run it's course. We lack the troops, the will and the treasury to do more for Iraq. I think it is a waste of people, time and money to remain there because nothing we do can affect positive change at this point.

However, I do not blame Democrats for this. I blamed the Republican Party and the President who lied to us in order to get his war. I blame the Republican Party that is currently in power and refuses to so much as hold hearings on waste and abuse in Iraq. I blame a Republican Party that cuts funding to wounded veterans.

I try and keep the focus where it belongs, on the ones who actually screwed up Iraq and took America to war based on lies and pretense. And that wasn't the Democrats.

[uppityperson]

4. Irritating how many did support it.

Is this going to develope into a bash kerry thread, or wtf did they support the invasion/occupation?

[blm]

5. He supported a reasonable resolution that Bush VIOLATED. When Bush went

to war, VIOLATING the resolution, Kerry said he did NOT support Bush's choice to use war while weapons inspectors were reporting back REAL INTEL that there was no reason for force.

Blame the IWr and YOU let Bush off the hook for being in violation of it.

[welshTerrier2]

39. in Kerry's own words ...

from Kerry's June 1 Pacific Council speech: "I accept my share of responsibility — as I said in 2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war.

yes, Kerry was lied to ... quelle shock!!

yes, Kerry hoped bush would use diplomacy ... of course, bush never intended to ...

but Kerry, himself, has acknowledged that, when he voted for the IWR, he "had gone to war" ...

his vote, whatever path he might have preferred, put trust in bush to do the right thing and set the nation on an irreversible path to war ... his preference might have been otherwise; his action was a vote for war ...

his statement "i would not have gone to war" is a very clear acknowledgement that he did "go to war" ...

of much greater and much more current concern to me now, is Kerry's apparent abandoning of his call for "immediate withdrawal" as of May 22 ... he's been far too quiet on this for my tastes ... I feel very betrayed ... more on this in another thread ... it's a bit OT here ...

[sendero]

56. And exactly what is Congress' recourse..

... against a president that violates such a law, and what is congress doing about it?

I thought so.

[blondeatlast]

60. Right you are--the Dems have so much power in Congress now.

What--you think Specter is gonna bring it up?

:eyes:

[SOS]

136. Bush did not violate the IWR

"(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall...make available...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"

The IWR gave Bush the sole authority to determine whether the meaningless conditions were met or not.

Bush could not possibly violate the IWR because the law allowed him, and only him, the decision.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Kerry repented, as did Edwards

Biden did not repent, and Lieberman is not only unrepentant, but he wants war against Iran.

[The Magistrate]

8. That Seems To Me An Over-Statement, Ma'am

It is possible to characterize voting for the enabling resolution as "support for the war", but it is not precisely accurate.

[kiahzero]

25. It's really not all that close to accurate (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

58. You might recall more than 70% of America did, too

Somehow I suspect "Nya-yah, told you so" is a real stinker of a political platform.

[SOS]

137. It's not 2003 anymore

Latest Quinnipiac shows 61% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq.
56% say the US should not have gone into Iraq.
For the past two and half years, less than 50% think the US should have invaded Iraq.
Recalling Bush's approval ratings from years ago is also a real stinker of a political platform.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[LynneSin]

185. We have no majority - now what?

Remember, even if every democrat got on board and voted to end this war now, the vote would probably never see the light out of committee.

[salvorhardin]

9. Too bad

Gore said he has "all but ruled out" running for President in 2008.

"I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/04/politics/p082508D39.DTL&type=politics

[ProSense]

10. What makes you think Kerry didn't speak out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. What bothers me more

is how many of them are still tacitly supporting the war, not speaking out, etc.

[beachmom]

71. That's a great point. It's also best to look at history for guidance.

There was a parallel in Vietnam to the IWR and that was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that escalated the war. I believe Eugene McCarthy voted yes on that resolution only to become a big anti-war voice in '68. In fact, it was Congress that finally cut off funding for that war in what -- '74, '75? -- and no doubt, many who did that had voted yes to the Gulf of Tonkin.

A lot of this has to do with forgiveness and keeping an eye on the present and the future. Kerry has been very open about how big a mistake he thinks that vote was. He called it a "profound mistake", and recently talked of how since Congress bears some responsibility of invading Iraq that they should now be part of the plan to get our troops OUT of Iraq.

Call your senators tomorrow and ask them to support Kerry's Senate Resolution #36 calling for a withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

[welshTerrier2]

12. Gore 08 and you emphasize the war?

voting for the IWR was incredibly wrong for any Democrat ... period ...

so you support Gore?

Gore has never, never called for immediate withdrawal nor has he set any kind of near-term withdrawal deadline ...

Gore was dead right before the invasion began; where the hell is he now???

[ourbluenation]

20. Um sorry - he did that this morning with George Stephanopolis. eom

[Mass]

34. No he did NOT. He said he was against a deadline and that

we had to leave as soon as possible (it could be before or after the end of the year) while making sure that the situation would not be a total mess (I paraphrase).
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=elections&id=4236092

" Gore, however, disagreed with Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., call to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; but again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the executive branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this."

[ourbluenation]

45. that works for me - i don't give a shit about deadlines as long as they

get out soon....which is what Gore seems to be saying.

[welshTerrier2]

49. a shit about deadlines?

i wrote: "Gore has never, never called for immediate withdrawal nor has he set any kind of near-term withdrawal deadline ..." and you said i was wrong because of what he said today ...

i was hoping you were right and now you tell me that he didn't support a deadline and you don't give a shit about them ... you want to explain that?????

[ourbluenation]

51. ...as long as....if your gunna quote me, quote me.

[welshTerrier2]

57. i think you've been "drawn and quoted" ... n/t

[blm]

77. *spit take*

You got that right. Good eye, wt.

[blm]

92. You have GOT to be joking.....

he sounded like Joe Biden in the clip that someone provided in another thread.

[welshTerrier2]

47. thanks, Mass !!

this line: "My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach" seems pretty clear to me ...

it will be interesting to see how the poster you responded to defends his/her position ...

[ourbluenation]

50. I agree totally with Gore - with official deadlines more Iraqis will die,

violence will increase as the "date" nears. Is it possible to draw down without announcing the big "date"? Probably - they probably already have a "date".

[welshTerrier2]

54. that's not at issue here ...

you indicated that Gore called for "immediate withdrawal or a near-term deadline" ...

did you tell the truth???

it's hard to see how ...

[ourbluenation]

62. Here's what he said and I agree...

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war,"

but even more importantly, here's what he said back in 2002...

"I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

[welshTerrier2]

65. then Gore is wrong on Iraq ...

i return, again, to my original statement in this sub-thread: "Gore has never, never called for immediate withdrawal nor has he set any kind of near-term withdrawal deadline ..."

Gore's speech to MoveOn about the war was great ... i commend him for it ... Gore was dead right to oppose what bush was doing ...

but he is not right NOW ... he makes the same mistake too many Dems have made and continue to make ... his "leave on condition" is WRONG because it suggests he believes bush is trying, however ineptly, to do the right thing ...

let me whisper this in your ear: "he isn't" ...

any recommended course of action that presumes bush is in Iraq for anything but colonial purposes misreads his purpose in Iraq and wrongly invests more blood and treasure in his greedy, criminal pursuits ... the continuance of regional frictions and the development of opposing Iraqi militia forces provides an easy justification to continue the colonial occupation of Iraq as Big Oil continues to acquire Iraqi oil fields and further damage US credibility or what's left of it ...

[ourbluenation]

66. Gore thinks Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq! Is that what your

saying...

[welshTerrier2]

70. no, that's not what i'm saying ...

let's try this again ...

what i'm saying is that bush is running the show ... period ...

anyone who calls for more occupation in Iraq, even for well-meaning objectives, is de facto putting their faith in he who is in control ... you cannot separate the script from the actors ... no matter what script you write, the actors can implement the script their own way ...

to say, "let's stay in Iraq until <your condition here>" is unfortunately saying "i think we should stay in Iraq until bush is able to <your condition here>" ... any script, with bush in power, has to take into account that he has colonial objectives ... period!!

failing to do that fails to understand the cancer infesting our government at the highest levels ... all pressure needs to be on getting out NOW ... if we can rally the public for "immediate withdrawal", perhaps enough political pressure can be put on the republicans to force an exit ... calling for a "let's get out WHEN" is far too conditional and vague ... it creates no political pressure at all ...

if i trusted the current president's motivations, PERHAPS i could condone Gore's position ... PERHAPS, with a real plan, and a real commitment for progress, I could consider remaining a little longer ... but with bush in power, with neo-con ideology and PNAC driving the agenda, NO WAY ...

the point isn't that I'm arguing that Gore thinks bush is doing the right thing in Iraq; the point is that Gore's "conditional withdrawal" presents a condition that bush has no intent of ever even trying to achieve ... and there's the rub ...

[beachmom]

74. Um, that's *'s talking point, just so you know

You know -- the part about the terrorists waiting for the deadline before they REALLY escalate the war. Sorry, that doesn't work. I hope Gore thinks about this more and comes out more aggressively. His statement today was disappointing and vague.

[welshTerrier2]

44. Um OK ... do you have a link or quote or anything?

i'm delighted Gore has finally spoken out ...

i will never vote for anyone who doesn't "get it" about why we need to leave Iraq NOW ...

there are many things to like about "the new Gore"; his silence on withdrawal has not been one of them ...

guess i'll go hunting for a transcript of exactly what he said ...

[chelsea0011]

13. It was a resolution to go to war if options fail. The inspectors

were finding nothing the Bush crime family said was there. They were asked to leave during their work so Bush could slaughter thousands of men, women, and children. Kerry did none of this.

[bowens43]

15. No one voted to go to war. No one. Period.

You obviously don't understand that the Iraq War Resolution was an attempt to slow down the march to war. The president did not need the resolution to invade Iraq.

[ourbluenation]

22. which is why I said "supported"....

[Mass]

33. He did NOT support it. He said again and again he was against thisw

war.

His vote was a total stupidity, I agree, but dont say something he never said.

[ourbluenation]

43. he supported taking out saddam - said it was the "right decision"

he voted for the resolution...

I believe your right though - I don't think he supports the war and I don't think he did then. I guess I would have loved for him to say what was in his heart, that's all.

[Kerry fan]

76. Kerry said what was in his heart.

It's all in his floor speech before the vote.

[karynnj]

111. He specificly said that the IWR was not for regime change

The Republicans removed language that gave Bush the right to remove Saddam. It was clear from the floor speech that if the language that didn't limit it to Iraq and listed several reasons for invading wouldn't have been removed, Kerry wouldn't have voted for it.

The Democrats neogotiating those changes were acting in good faith, Bush wasn't.

[ProSense]

19. Here's a way to support the call for full withdrawal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2658795&mesg_id=2658795

[heartofthesiskiyou]

21. My biggest two problems

(and there are more) is how he rolled over after the election was stolen in Ohio without even a day to look at the evidence. He still with all the evidence refuses to speak up and lets RFK all by himself twirl in the wind.

I also don't see how he could have chosen Lieberman.

I stongly believe there is a problem with his leadership qualities as these two issues point to.

I haven't forgetten that the dems were in the majority in the Senate when the vote to attack Iraq, well never mind it's all been discussted before. I just hope we can put together an oposition to the neocomms. I just don't see that route is going to be with Kerry at the head of the ticket.

[Kerry fan]

67. Heart, what does this quote of yours mean?

Who chose Lieberman for what are you talking about?

"I also don't see how he could have chosen Lieberman."

[Mass]

23. Well, at least Kerry is asking for pulling the troops out of Iraq

and has said clearly that it was a mistake.

If you dont want to hear that, too bad for you. Nobody is perfect on everything. If you cant forgive when somebody sincerely says it was an error, you will support nobody, because I am sure there are plenty of votes and decisions Gore took you would not agree either (some fairly important). Nobody is perfect.

So, support Gore if you want. He is a good man and will be a good president, but please, support him on his own merit.

BTW, Kerry spoke out then against the war. You may want to reread his speeches at the time.

[ourbluenation]

72. I supported Kerry in 04 and I'm glad he's speaking out....yesterday

I was watching Kos and Jerome on with Tim Russert and the subject came up of democrats who voted for the resolution and their political ambitions in 08. It was like Kerry had this great opportunity to make a real statement and vote against the resolution, but he didn't. It hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday just what in hades was he thinking?

[beachmom]

75. Well, then it's easy for you with that litmus test

You can either support Feingold (only one who voted against IWR) or someone NOT in the Congress who wasn't stuck with a REAL vote. The non-voters, of course, may or may not be trustworthy in the future, so you'll have to check other past actions. As they say, talk is cheap. Kerry has disavowed his vote and is out there trying to stop this war with a real senate resolution to get troops out by the end of the year. That's an action, not just talk.

[Critters2]

161. Right, He opposes the war. After he voted for the war.

I'm sure the Repugs won't mention that in a campaign against him

Why don't we nominate someone with integrity, not someone who can only boast about how well he apologizes for voting the wrong way?

[Critters2]

163. He damned well ought to

He helped put 'em there.

[kiahzero]

24. No they didn't.

They all voted for the authorization to use force as a last resort, argued against using it when Bush did, but that was deemed to be too "nuanced" by many. I don't recall a single Democrat saying that Bush was right to invade in March 2003.

[Old and In the Way]

26. I guess it must be a slow news day here today......

Here's what Kerry said in his vote to support the Office of the President. I guess he should have known Bush would violate the terms of the Resolution and be the 1st pResident to use an elective war for personal political gain.

Kerry's speech on his IWR vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x574


It's long, so I'll snip some of the relevant passages.



Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.



But lets blame Kerry for the war crimes Bush committed....

[Critters2]

164. If a nobody pastor in rural Iowa could see what Bush was up to

A Yale-educated attorney sitting in the US Senate should have.

Willful ignorance is no excuse--and makes him even less attractive as a candidate.

[politicasista]

27. Another Dem bashing thread

Sunday must be "Trash Democrats Underground Day". I am Anti-War, but I am glad someome like Kerry is calling for immediate withdraw, and other Dems like Feingold and antiwar activists are joining him. Shouldn't you spreading the word about his withdraw plan from Iraq instead of letting Blinky off the hook?

Besides you seem to be bashing Kerry just to promote Gore. I am a Gore fan too, but I would NEVER, ever bash another dem just to promote another, which seems to be your agenda instead of getting the truth out.

[Mass]

31. There seems to be an epidemy today. I wonder why?

[politicasista]

32. Yep, I wonder why too n/t

[ourbluenation]

36. Kerry voted for the resolution because he was scared of appearing

weak on terror. flat out.

I'm sick of candidates operating out of fear....give me authenticity! It's not a Kerry bash more of a yearning for authenticity which really hit me hard yesterday, hence the timing of this post. As I said in my first post - I love Kerry, but I think he should stay in the senate and spend less energy on promoting himself to national office. He's a good man and a smart man and probably would have made a hella of a president but it's too late for that now.

[Mass]

38. So yearn for authenticity without attacking other people.

[ourbluenation]

41. no - I'm pissed...or is that not allowed now. eom

[karynnj]

116. If you believe what you say, Kerry may end up the best viable candidate

You are assigning a motive for his vote. If Kerry's vote was political or out of fear of looking weak on terror, he would not have spoke out in early 2003 before Bush attacked and after he attacked. Kerry because of his New War book had the credentials to show he wasn't weak on terror.

I assume his reasons were what he said before the vote and for the next 2 years. That he now concedes that, in effect, it was a vote that allowed Bush to go to war does not change the fact that it clearly wasn't his perception when he voted. In terms of what he would do as President, the floor speech shows his position - he would not ignore the threat, would investigate it, but would go to war only if it were an imminent threat and with the international community. The yes/no quality of a vote gives only 2 choices.

There aren't that many people of whom you can say, "He's a good man and a smart man and probably would have made a hella of a president". As 2008 approaches, those 3 qualities may put him at the top of the list again. His Pacific speech contains his comments on Iraq and Iran (and other problems). Reading it I can't think of any one I would feel more comfortable with as President.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3166

[Critters2]

154. Exactly!! A president needs a functioning spine!! n/t

[ourbluenation]

28. In the dem primary debate Kerry said it was the right decision...

though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

When I think of it now...come on - how wishy washy can ya get????

[Mass]

30. Which one - do you have a link? and what was the right decision?

Did you listen to Gore on Iraq today, saying that he was against a deadline.

[ourbluenation]

40. found a bunch of links....

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=John+Kerry+Iraq+war+was+the+right+decision&spell=1

[blm]

82. In his debate with Bush, Gore PLEDGED to get tougher on Iraq as president.

Care to rate that?

[Lefty-Taylor]

52. Yes he supported the war like so many political cowards. Feingold, on the

other hand, didn't.

[ourbluenation]

63. you got it lefty - that's kind of my point. I think he gave in to fear of

appearing soft on defense. I'm afraid Kerry's postulating on the mater will be very difficult to overcome - if it can be at all. I voted for him, and don't regret it for a second...but the longer this nightmare in Iraq continues, the more pissed off I get with the people who enabled it to happen.

[ProSense]

64. Who did you vote for in 2004? n/t

[ourbluenation]

69. who me? Kerry. why do you ask?

[ProSense]

80. My post isn't a response to yours, is it? n/t

[blm]

79. Why don't you read both Feingold and Kerry's IWR speeches and analyze

both their positions and tell us how far apart they really were.

[Critters2]

155. Nor Durbin, nor others

Why would anyone vote for Kerry?

[Kerry fan]

68. Lieberman is George Bush's favorite democratic senator...

That about says it all, imo.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

98. RW BS promotion! n/t

[karynnj]

118. He's actually one of the more consistent Senators

over a 22 year Senate career

[DesertRat]

73. I agree with you

I refuse to vote for any Senator who supported this war. For any reason.

Gore 2008

[beachmom]

78. That's great. But Gore wasn't up for any election.

He did vote for the Persian Gulf War in '91, a war that inevitably led to this one. I love Gore -- he's #2 on my list. But I have no illusions that when he actually held office, he was a centrist Democrat. Kerry is and was far more liberal. But if IWR is the only game in town for you, then more power to ya.

[AtomicKitten]

83. "WAS A CENTRIST"

past tense.

And if you are implying that some voted for the war because they were up for re-election, that is not particularly a ringing endorsement and certainly not particularly impressive.

Gore opposed this war from the get-go.

[blm]

135. Most DEms DID OPPOSE THE WAR from the get-go - the resolution didn't

go to war - it had tools to PREVENT WAR and those tools were working.

Let Bush off the hook for violating the IWR - He SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE TO WAR when the IWR tools WERE WORKING AS INTENDED.

Whether you KNOW IT OR NOT, you all let Bush off the hook when you blame the VERY RESOLUTION that was working to PREVENT WAR.

That's Bush's great victory over the left and they used the media to make sure it happened.

[AtomicKitten]

140. and you let a certain Senator off the hook for voting "yes" on the IWR

If he opposed the war, he should have voted "no."

Wellstone did.
Boxer did.
Byrd did.
Durbin did.
Feingold did.
Jefford did.
Kennedy did.
Leahy did.
Levin did.
Mijulski did.
Murray did.
Reed did.
Bighaman did.
Sarbanes did.
Stabenow did.
Wyden did.
Conrad did.
Dayton did.
Corzine did.
Akakka did.
Graham did.
Inouye did.
Even Republican Chafee did.

[blm]

144. He was FOR weapons inspectors getting back in and had been since 1998 -

and he was being consistent in wanting to make sure the weapons inspections did start up again.

When you blame the IWR you let Bush off the hook for being in violation of the IWR that was working as intended when the weapon inspectors were reporting NO WMDs were being found.

So - the bottom line really is - Was the IWR working when the weapons inspectors were reporting no WMDs were found and diplomats were reporting progress with Saddam for a peaceful regime change?

[AtomicKitten]

146. too bad he was "for" the IWR

that gave Junior a free pass to reek havoc on the globe.

A rationalization a day keeps the truth away.

[blm]

148. I disagree - the IWR was WORKING - that's why Bush had to violate it.

Or do you believe the iWR was NOT WORKING on March 15, 2003?

[ProSense]

149. That's such BS

First of all it was not a vote for war!

Gore's speech was based on Bush's proposed resolution:

In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, etc., wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations. It means also that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.

Snip...

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Was Gore laying out a criteria for war?



Kerry cited Bush's resolution, and clearly stated that's resolution was revised to specifically address Iraq:

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

If you're interested, you can read his speech to know why he voted the way he did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931

[AtomicKitten]

151. He voted "yes" on the IWR - that's the truth, not BS

You might want to consider arguing in a more adult fashion rather than yelling "bullshit" and "wrong."

The IWR enabled Bush to go to war by virture of abdication of war-declaring powers to him. That's the truth whether you like it or not.

You must be dizzy with your spinning.

[ProSense]

153. "abdication of war-declaring powers to him" is nonsense!

The IWR states "in order to" and specifys "presidential determination."

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 there after 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 resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) 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.

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

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat. Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met and only in the face of an imminent threat.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. The president needs to report back to Congress withing 60 days after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent
of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or
in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)
specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

Like it or not, the president has the power to go to war. Bush falsified the evidence to claim that Iraq was a threat to national security.

The IWR gave Bush 48 hrs to report back, so the IWR didn't make it easier. It specifically stated the steps Bush had to take before considering the use of force when all other options for a peaceful solution were exhausted and the a clear and imminent threat was present. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied the specific criteria laid out by Congress.

[AtomicKitten]

156. It's a fact, Jack.

They put the ball in Junior's court and, worse, they gave him the appearance of a "bipartisan decision" to go to war which erodes the high road for the Democrats.

You are okay with the "yes" vote, many are not. That's just something we are going to have to disagree on, one would hope respectfully, but clearly that's not possible for some.

[ProSense]

159. It's not a fact! It's your spin! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

165. if it makes you feel better

believe whatever you want.

[ProSense]

160. It's not a fact! It's your spin! n/t

[blm]

81. How do you know Gore wouldn't have voted for it as a senator? He PLEDGED

in his 2000 campaign to get TOUGHER on Iraq, and BushInc would have held him up to that if he were in the senate.

Gore also has an established HISTORY of shifting his positions towards the right on military matters. If he hadn't gotten out of DC and absorbed what the street was saying, I couldn't imagine him ignoring his original instincts and voting againt the IWR - that's just not Gore. But Gore as president would have ADHERED to an IWR and let the weapons inspectors do their job so no invasion would have happened.

Here's some insight for those who are actually less familiar with Gore:

http://www.seedshow.com/atlantaconstart.htm

>>>>>
Nunn and a key DLC organizer, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, opted out of the presidential race. But the DLC has finally found its man in young Sen. Al Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, whose campaign has been floundering with only two to four percent voter approval in the crucial early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The DLC convinced Gore to regionalize his efforts to Southern states with Super Tuesday primaries by appealing to the 1984 Reaganite “swing voters.” So Gore flip-flopped from his progressive voting record and abruptly adopted some of Reagan’s militaristic views on contra aid, the invasion of Grenada, and the Persian Gulf military build-up.

The media has hyped Gore’s rightward swing aimed at the DLC’s mythical suburban “swing vote” of 1984, but has failed to factor in the drastically diminished state of Reagan’s credibility with voters in 1987-88. Reagan put his credibility on the line in 1986 Senate elections with vigorous personal involvement. His candidates were defeated by a revitalized traditional Democratic base of blue-collar workers, blacks, farmers and small businessmen in every key Southern race.

The 1986 elections preceded more recent Reagan credibility crunches like Iran/Contragate, the stock market crash and Bork-Ginsburg. The electorial advantage of Gore’s switching to Reagan’s positions on contra aid, etc. – minority positions according to polls in the South and everywhere else – is questionable. Republicans are running on Super Tuesday at the same time, in the same states, advocating the same positions. How many pro-contra aid voters will be left for Gore in the Democratic primaries?

>>>>>>

[AtomicKitten]

87. let's do the math

1) Gore voted for the first Gulf War based on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
2) Gore opposed this war from the get-go.
3) Gore has established a history of shifting to the left over the last several years.

Don't be so anxious to tar Gore (or anyone else) based on speculation just because your guy voted "yes" on the IWR.

[blm]

89. I didn't - I said had Gore not left DC and was in the same SENATE role

that the other senators were in.

I factor in entire records and put people in exact same circumstances when I speculate. Shouldn't that be the basis for speculation?

That's not tarring Gore - it's legitimate to call in entire records as they are crucial to HONEST speculation.

Face it - most people here THINK they know Gore completely - some people here even claim Gore called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq today, and he didn't. They hear what they want to hear while ignoring the historic record.

Nobody knows exactly how Gore would have voted had he been in the senate. We only know what he has said about Iraq AS A CANDIDATE and what he has chosen to do in the past as a senator. Had he not left DC for 2 years, how can you be certain of his vote?

[AtomicKitten]

93. Perhaps what you might want to consider facing

is that you and some others will say anything to drag down other candidates to promote Kerry.

The fact is Gore did not support this war, and for you to suggest that he would have had he been in the Senate has no basis in fact or reason.

It's just propaganda.

[blm]

95. No - it's an answer for when people say with certainty that had Gore voted

he would have voted against the IWR. I say no one could know that, based on his record and his own words from when he was running for president.

People seem to contradict themselves - they say that they love that Al Gore has now shifted left since he's been out of DC, but then turn around and claim that even if he STAYED in DC and voted on IWR he would still be the same Al Gore who shifted left AWAY from DC.

Who really knows how he would have voted - I don't claim to.

[AtomicKitten]

103. Considering Gore opposed the war from the start,

it certainly is logically more likely he would have voted against it than for it.

I never speculated on how he would vote, you most certaily did based on ancient history rather than taking into account his actual on-the-record opposition to this war with Iraq.

[karynnj]

119. I think it would be wrong to say that Gore would vote for it

The IWR language itself changed between when Gore spoke in Sept 2002 and the final form voted on - largely because of criticisms made by Gore and other Democrats. Many "reasons" to support going to war were removed. If you look only at public statements, Kerry had an excellent op-ed on Sept 6 against going to war without Congress and the UN's approval.

If Gore were in the Senate, he might have been a force persuading others not to vote for it, arguing for more amendments, and then maybe voting against it. The point BLM makes is that his record suggests that he might have voted yes to the amended version. But we don't know what would happen.

What we do know, from the real world, is:
- Gore was adamantly against it before it started and spoke out.
- If President, Gore would NOT have gone to war

- Kerry voted for it, but expressed reservations and listed promises made that were not kept
- Kerry spoke out against going to war when Bush was talking about going to war
- If President, Kerry would not have gone to war

[Mass]

99. The fact is that this thread is exactly the same thing. The OP finds

necessary to slam Kerry and others in order to promote Gore.

I am not sure I see any difference. blm is entitled to her opinion as much as the OP is.

[AtomicKitten]

107. the OP would have been better served to oppose ALL

that voted "yes" on the IWR, as I do.

I agree narrowing one's wrath to this candidate or that is capricious and unfair.

And you bet everyone is titled to their opinion, but blm was going of on a bent based on the pure speculation that Gore would have voted for this war had he been in the Senate.

My opposition to that notion was based on the fact that Gore has been opposed it from the get-go and if one is going to speculate, it's only fair and reasonable to actually take into account his on-the-record stance as opposed to an extrapolation that ends up the opposite of his actual position.

[AtomicKitten]

84. me neither

[Skittles]

85. I AGREE WITH YOU

they did it for political reasons and I find it sickening

[wisteria]

86. Kerry didn't directly vote for the war- he didn't start it Bush did.

Kerry has said he regrets allowing Bush the authority to use force even as a last resort in Iraq. His vote for the Resolution, not for war, was done with the best interests of the country in mind.

Gore's lastest middle of the road comments on an Iraqi pull out are disappointing and indicate that he really hasn't changed much.

Kerry 08!!

[AtomicKitten]

88. A convenient rationalization.

But, heh, if it works for you ...

[wisteria]

102. It does more than just work, it is the truth and is very sincere.

It is easy to take a stand and criticize when you have nothing to lose or you aren't in a position of power. Where were those like Gore during this time, right before the Iraqi resolution was voted on? Why weren't they speaking out then?

[AtomicKitten]

109. It would help if you were paying attention.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

[welshTerrier2]

91. in Kerry's own words ...

i don't start threads about Kerry's IWR vote because it's way more important where our elected reps stand NOW ...

on the other hand, i don't just let it pass when someone argues a vote for the IWR was not a vote for war ... that's just revisionist nonsense ...

here, in his very own words, is what Kerry recently said:

from Kerry's June 1 Pacific Council speech: "I accept my share of responsibility — as I said in 2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war."

to say, had some condition been different, i would not have gone to war is a clear acknowledgement, given that the referenced condition was not the case, that he DID GO TO WAR ...

i understand Kerry preferred and spoke of a different path ... nevertheless, he acknowledged that his vote was a vote "to go to war" ... he acknowledged it; so should you ...

on edit: not even on DU am i allowed to spell it: "acknowldedged"

[ProSense]

94. An acknowledgement last weekend

about the circumstances is not a statement about what Congress voted for. He would not have gone to war, unlike Bush.

Here is what he has alwasy said about the vote:

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

And read his speech about before the vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931

[welshTerrier2]

101. Kerry acknowledged that he "went to war" ...

i've read his other speeches ... i'm quoting his most recent one ...

if your point is that his acknowledgement was not referring specifically to his IWR vote, fine ...

if it's to argue that he hasn't acknowledged by the words i quoted that he "went to war", perhaps by an action other than his IWR vote, please explain the meaning of his recent words ...

[TayTay]

110. I think Kerry finds Iraq to be a giant clusterfuck

And I think he regrets that he ever believed Colin Powell and other seemlingly sane people in the Bush Admin who promised to reign in Bush and not go to war on what amounts to a whim.

I think the Senator regrets trusting those people. I think Kerry sees the people coming back from Iraq in boxes and regrets his vote. Perhaps he also sees the people coming back damaged in body and mind and feels the weight of that vote. I think that's why he recanted it.

Sen. Kerry in no way wanted a full-scale war with Iraq. That is documented and can be looked up on the Congressional record. (Look for speeches around Oct 10, 2002 and draw your own conclusions.) I think John Kerry is a moral human being who regrets the suffering and the incredible horrors that this war has brought about, both in Iraq and at home. I think that's why he has publicly called for a withdrawal by 12/31/06.

I think it also is a Vietnam flashback to another war that was hopelessly screwed up and that the only good thing that could come of it is ending it. Kerry has publicly recanted that vote because it resulted in the clusterfuck that is Iraq. He didn't intend it to happen, but it did. He said that he had no other moral choice but to recant and then argue for a withdrawal. Period. What other conclusion can you draw from the 4/22/06 speech at Faneuil Hall?

[welshTerrier2]

112. just to be clear ...

i have not suggested Kerry "wanted a full-scale war with Iraq" ...

and as for his 4/22/06 speech?? i'll get back to you in time ... i feel betrayed ... i don't want to elaborate yet ... let's see what happens in the next few weeks ... i'm not optimistic ...

[TayTay]

114. Okay. I don't think so either. I don't many besides Bush did.

I don't think any Dems wanted a full-scale war with Iraq. I think that's why the Downing Street Minutes are so important. There was a security argument to be made, but it was bungled, mutilated and mangled beyond recognition. (And the security threat was what inspectors were there for.)

As for the betrayal, start a different thread or PM. I have been a bit busy this past week and don't know what you are referring to. I do know that Iraq has not formed that government and the last I checked (which was not in-depth) Kerry has said that and then called for pressure on Iraq to do better and called for withdrawal again. He was asking people to sign the petition to get other Dems to sign the Senate Resolution that asks for just that. Beyond that, I have not yet read but will do so if given a link.

[Critters2]

171. He screwed up,

a major screw up, which renders him unqualified to be president. These things happen. Time to move on.

[karynnj]

120. I don't read that as clearly as you do

I think Kerry is simply conceding that Bush used the resolution to go to war. This is not the same as saying that he "went to war". I think he is admitting that, regardless of his motivation in voting, that is what happened. He has also said that he profoundly regrets his vote. He has said repeatedly that if he were the President he would not have gone to war.

[Mass]

106. Kerry is adult enough to recognize the consequences of his vote.

Obviously, he would not have gone to war if he was president, but the consequence of these votes in the Senate is that Bush went to war (even if it was not the intention behind the vote).

We should be proud that Kerry is somebody who is adult enough to recognize his errors and their consequences. Good for him.

[welshTerrier2]

108. well said ...

i commend Kerry for having the courage to acknowledge his vote, however well intended, was wrong and to now seek a better path ...

[ProSense]

113. Bush going to war is not a consequence of the vote.

Bush violated the resolution. I understand the regrets and am proud Kerry is expressing them, but as Kerry has said time and again: If we knew then what we know now, the resolution would never have come up for a vote.

Seriously, if everyone knew that the evidence was false, Bush lied and Iraq had no WMD, why would the resolution even exist?

[CTLawGuy]

130. what language in IWR did Bush violate

I always hear this, but no one ever seems to say what he violated.

[ProSense]

138. You're even being disingenuous about this!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2356013&mesg_id=2356013

[CTLawGuy]

166. how does that prove I'm disingenuous

I'm sure you are not really that stupid

Do you know what disingenuous is? It is when a resolution that in Oct. 2002 is nearly universally opposed by us on this board, suddenly in 2004 when a certain Mass. Senator is our nominee, becomes a great piece of legislation designed to hamstring Bush.

Cause you know, Tom Delay wanted to prevent war, thats why it passed the House strongly. :eyes:

[ProSense]

178. No it always was, but you've seen it before:

The IWR specifically stated the steps Bush had to take before considering the use of force when all other options for a peaceful solution were exhausted and the a clear and imminent threat was present. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied the specific criteria laid out by Congress.

The IWR states "in order to" and specifys "presidential determination."

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 there after 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 resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) 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.

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

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat. Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met and only in the face of an imminent threat.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. The president needs to report back to Congress withing 60 days after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent
of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or
in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)
specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

Like it or not, the president has the power to go to war. Bush falsified the evidence to claim that Iraq was a threat to national security.


It's universally understood!

[CTLawGuy]

182. where's this "last resort" language

it's nowhere.

You're right that the president must make a determination, but is there any way to veto or challenge his determination? No. there's no requirement that it be based on any facts. He doesn't even have to say why he thinks diplomacy failed.

All he has to do is say "Congress, diplomacy failed, we're going to war," and he could be lying through his teeth. (which he was).

Also the president DOES NOT have the inherent power to go to war, absent a national emergency on the level of "oh shit we are being attacked right now!"

[Critters2]

177. He can have my congratulations, but not my primary vote n/t

[CTLawGuy]

129. Congress only has the power to start a war

so your comment makes no sense. When Kerry voted to allow Bush to instead have that power, he had to have been prepared to see a war happen. In my book if Congress delegates the power to go to war to the president, it is voting for the war. Otherwise, why empower another person to possibly make that decision.

[karynnj]

181. WWII was the last declared war (before Afghanistan )

Soldiers were committed by many President - including Democrats. (Bill Clinton didn't even go to Congress - though he of course worked with international allies, had specific honest goals, and an exit plan.) The constitution does let the CIC initiate a war if their is impending danger.

[Fabio]

100. Post is so transparent

Look, if you believe John Kerry would have started a unilateral war with Iraq, we can talk. If you think he made a mistake about his strategy in taking his case against the president 2 years later, we can also talk. If you dont think he regrets his vote, and has apologized and regretted it since it was cast, we cant.

[babylonsister]

117. You are the first 'Fabio' I ever wanted to kiss!

:*

[demdiva]

122. babylonsister & Fabio sitting in a tree ....

:blush:
I'll second that. n/t

[babylonsister]

123. Tis so cute someone caught that, demdiva! Gracias! nt

[demdiva]

124. I try :)

[ourbluenation]

121. transparent was voting aye for the resolution for political reasons....

it's what he did and you know it.

[The Magistrate]

127. Good Lord, Ma'am!

Are you telling me a politician acted out of political calculation? Heavens above and Saints forfend, has there ever been such a thing done before in the history of humanity? What strange and mysterious times are these in which we are cursed to live!

[CTLawGuy]

131. 2000+ of our soldiers dead becuase of this political calculation

tens of thousands of Iraqis, 250 million dollars a day wasted.

I find it appalling that Congress would allow such a big decision to be made by the president with little to no accountability involved.

[The Magistrate]

162. That Is A Considerable Over-Statement, Sir

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the proposed resolution had been rejected by all Democrats in the Senate plus Jeffords. Do you really thnk this would have halted the thing? The preparations, the deployments, all would have gone on on the same schedule. The '02 election would have been fought on the slogan "Voting for a Democrat is voting for Saddam!" The losses in the Senate would have been far worse than they actually were, and the first business of the new Congress would have been the triumphant passage of the enabling reolution. The invasion would have taken place on the same day planned for the previous autumn; there would not even have been a delay. We both know this would have been the outcome.

[CTLawGuy]

168. So by that logic

if the Nazis are going to run the country no matter what, I should just sign up to be a guard at Auschwitz.



This war would not have been as popular as it originally was if there were actual strong voices against it. Instead both parties' leaders were in favor. See Traitor Dick and Lieberman standing behind Bush at the Rose Garden.

All we got from our so-called leadership was spineless pandering.

[The Magistrate]

173. Again, Sir, An Overstatement

Hyperbole, like fire, is a good servant but a poor master.

The point remains: the vote altered nothing. Whether or not a prominent Democrat voted for or against the measure had no effect and could have no effect. It therefore cannot rightly be used for loud accusations that "such and so is responsible for the war!"

The responsibility for the war lies with the Rpublican administration which conceived, planned, executed, and horribly botched it. They, and no one else, are to blame.

[CTLawGuy]

175. Look in the US constitution

specifically Article I Section 8 and tell me who is responsible for when to go to war.

I'll give you a hint, it's not the president and its not the judiciary.

Dems controlled the Senate and could have passed a better resolution, or none at all.

Personally, I'd rather Dems lose all their seats in congress rather than have anyone die needlessly.

It's sick that some people here endorse the strategy of just give the admin the rope to hang themselves.

That's some deadly rope and a lot of innocent people got mixed in.

But again, we can't do anything without the majority :eyes:

(and apparently, when we do have the majority we STILL can't do anything)

[The Magistrate]

176. We Both Know What The Constitution Says, Sir

We also both know what the actual practice has been for more than half a century, and what the political realities of late '02 and early '03 were.

"The beginning of wisdom in strategy is understanding what your force is capable of acheiving."

[Critters2]

179. Or as Bush himself once said,

"It's just a piece of paper"

Sad to hear it coming from a Dem, tho.

[Fabio]

128. I am not seeing how i denied that.

Did Kerry make a bad political calculation during a tough, missold situation in October 2002? Yes.
Do I think the Iraq War is Kerry's policy and his legacy? That it would have been started if he were president? No.

Land's squarely on Bush.

[ProSense]

133. Wrong! You don't know what you're talking about and have no clue

about Kerry's motivation! If you're interested you can read his speech to know why he voted the way he did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931


I suppose it was politically advantageous for him to speak out against the war before it started, then continue speaking out against the war through to the election.


"Oh I supported him, worked for him, but...." But what?

The vote occurred in 2002 and the election in 2004. What the hell would have caused you to work for or support Kerry when you believed he supported the illegal war? What exactly were you voting for, more of the same! By this logic you supported the war then, but don't now. This is a bullshit excuse for an ulterior motive!

Unlike this BS logic, Kerry never voted for war and never supported war.

[AtomicKitten]

150. rationalization, equivocation, self-deceit

Kerry voted "yes" on the IWR. Period.
Keep spinning it any way you like, but you are only fooling yourself.

[Critters2]

157. Iraq. War. Resolution.

What part of this did he not understand?

[LittleClarkie]

126. So you pick someone who didn't have to make the choice

How... safe... of you.

He supported the authority, not the war.

But you've probably heard that before.

I'm not a one issue voter. I have other issues with Hillary and Biden. And there is more to see than the fact of the vote, such as speeches made then and now.

Clinton still talks like she supports the effort NOW. Kerry has come out full throttle against. I'll not get hung up on a three year old vote. That was then, this is now. What's going on now. Several who voted yes have coughed up their apologies and their mea culpas.

And I still think that anything less than prez is a waste of resources for John Kerry. The problem is that the most qualified often isn't who we pick. We're hung up on the most photogenic or the most charismatic.

I'll take Attorney General if I can't get prez though.

[Bridget Burke]

132. So much energy, in so many threads....

Wasted fighting against Democrats.

Don't we have any real opponents?

[Catchawave]

134. Thank you....

You speak for me :hi:

[politicasista]

139. Nah, it's fun tearing down democrats n/t

[bdamomma]

141. I would disagree that Kerry supported the war in Iraq

read this article or do some research on it. Kerry did not endorse military force. Not to bring up an old subject, but check out this article.

http://www.slate.com/id/2105096/

[rhett o rick]

143. Huh?? He voted for the resolution thinking GWB wouldn't use force?

I sure as hell hope he fired his advisor's. What is GWB record for telling the truth, being trustworthy. Did Kerry actually ever see any evidence of WMD himself? Or did he take GWB's word? There was the aluminum tubes that Powell showed everyone. And everyone knows that aluminum tubes lead to mass destructions. GWB said that Iraq had tens of thousands of tons of chemicals and gasses, but there were no photos of the warehouses or train cars (hundreds) or any thing else. GWB's claim of WMD was soooo very transparent. Anyone with half a brain could see thru it.

[ProSense]

147. Isn't it shocking: American's elected a dishonest president! Twice! n/t

[Critters2]

158. Exactly! I never understand this argument....

"Kerry wasn't pro-war. He was just stupid" And then they go on to suggest we should support him in '08.


Me, I'd have to think the "Iraq War Resolution" was resolving to enter into a war in Iraq.

But I should vote for a man who wasn't smart enough to see this?
:shrug:

[ProSense]

167. But you did vote for Kerry!

Were you that stupid or are you pretending stupidity now?

[Critters2]

169. I was given no better choice

by the leadership of the Dem Party, too many of whom were also cowed by the idea they might look weak on defense. Spineless jellyfish. I voted for Howard Dean in the caucuses. But Kerry went after him with a vengeance in Iowa, painting him as a leftist extremist (a lie, btw), and exploiting Dean's lack of support for the war, while touting his own support for the IWR.

But you probably already know that some consider Kerry a flip-flopper.

I just think he's a political opportunist. I gave him a chance--after all the reasonable choices were taken away. I won't do it again.

I pray the party is smart enough NOT to nominate him again.

[ProSense]

172. No one forces you to vote for a candidate, that's your decision! n/t

[Critters2]

174. Yes it is

Nominate Kerry and I'll vote Green.

[karynnj]

180. Kerry didn't paint Dean as a leftish extremist

Dean TRIED to portray himself as the candidate of the left. It was Dean who pushed the link of IWR = support for war.

[Critters2]

183. IWR was support of the war

Iraq War Resolution....anyone too stupid to know that that was a resolution to go to war with Iraq is too stupid to be president.

I enjoy the argument from ignorance, though..."Vote for Kerry, he votes yes on legislation he doesn't understand!"

If that's the best you can do, I think I'll vote for someone else, thanks.

[rhett o rick]

142. I see three possible reasons for Democrats supporting the IWAR

1. They sympathize with the neoconservative agenda.
2. They believed the blatant propaganda that had absolutely no factual backing.
3. They didn't believe the propaganda but thought they would look bad in the eyes of the public if they voted against the war.

To me it don't matter. They failed us when we needed them the most. They failed us !!!! Plez don't tell me we should forgive and forget. At least Kerry shows some remorse, but Clinton and Cantwell are defiant in their continued support of the neocon war.

[musical_soul]

145. Welcome to my world.

The best way to get politicians to speak for what you want is to get the majority of voters to agree with you. It sucks, but that is the way it is.

[LynneSin]

184. So did John Murtha - hate him

I am angry over what people had done back in 2002 but 9/11 was still fresh in our minds and many of them felt that perhaps the reasoning behind it could have been valid. I was at a lecture hosted by Joe Biden here in Delaware right before the vote. Afterwards he was mingling with those of us in attendence and he talked about the difficult choices that they had to make. I mean, Joe has no threat whatsoever for his seat in here in Delaware so his vote wasn't to save his hide for election time. But the one thing he kept mentioning was "What if the data is right - what if there really is a threat?"

I think alot of people who voted for support Bush in that fateful 2002 was probably asking themselves the very exact questions: "What if?". And remember the vote was NOT to send us to war but to give Bush admin the rights to go to war if we got UN approval. Bush was the one that changed it around.

So "What if?". We can't change the past but we can work with those who voted "YES" in October 2002 to realize what they have done and hopefully get them to change their minds and help end this war.

John Murtha was one of the biggest supporters for war and yet he realized he was wrong. Kerry is doing the same thing.

[question everything]

186. Remember Colbert about Bush's convictions?

He believe on Wednesday what he believed on Monday regardless of what happened on Tuesday.

Educated, intelligent people are not afraid to change their opinions, and votes, once new information is available.

At the time of the vote, they accepted the White House intel - at least, give them the benefit of that. Now they realize that the intel was a lie: not only about WMD, but about being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis.

Of course we all should be happy that Saddam is gone. However we do not see the U.S. invading every single country with ruthless dictators, not to mention countries that are known to have nuclear weapon like North Korea.

After the fall of the central government the U.S. should have accepted the then offer to help of other countries, including Germany and France who were not partners of the coalition of the whillies.

It should have encouraged neighboring countries like Egypt, Jordan and perhaps even Syria to take over the country until a new government were formed. With "liberating" armies that share history, language, and culture, there may have been a more peaceful transition. And we would have demonstrated that we were not there to stay to take over the oil fields (yeah, right).

By now, instead of a more or less stable country it is worse then the wild west.

The only think left now is to split it into three different countries, like Yugoslavia, help each with forming them, and get the hell out of there.

And meanwhile, thousands die in Darfur and no one cares.

[Critters2]

187. I care about Darfur, and give to groups working there

The major difference, tho, is that we are not directly responsible for Darfur. Thanks to those who voted for the IWR, Iraq is the USA's problem.