Feingold's and Kerry's speeches before the Iraq war

[ProSense]

There has been a lot of distortion about what Congress believed and voted for. Every member of Congress was misled to believe that Saddam had WMD.


Here is Senator Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

Snip...

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Two days earlier, Senator Kerry on October 9, 2002:

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

Snip…

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.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

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.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Snip…

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.

Snip...

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.

Snip...

That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

Page: S10173
Page: S10174

And look at at how the votes played out on this list of amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

[robinlynne]

1. I knew there weren't any. Didn't you?

[sandnsea]

3. Feingold didn't

The dumbass. When are you running for office, clearly you and all the rest of the DUers who "knew" ought to be running the entire world. :eyes:

[jsamuel]

98. He didn't know, but he thought that we needed more answers, more informati

on before jumping into war and voting for this Resolution

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

...

But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.

My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. You didn't "know" anything.

You may have suspected, but a suspicion does not and has never constituted firm knowledge.

This is a simple fact many people here seem incapable of grasping.

[htuttle]

17. I personally didn't *know* there were no WMDs in Iraq, BUT

..I KNEW that the Bush Administration was lying to us about them.

Their stories and accusations about Hussein's WMDs never did parse for me. They seemed like they were lying about it from the start the way they'd exaggerate, then get called on it, then alter the story to fit. They did this over and over during the lead up to the war. None of their evidence ever solid or tangible. To me, it felt like a con job the whole time.

Like I said, that doesn't mean I knew that Hussein had no WMD, but I felt quite certain that Bush was lying to me about them. And given that, I strongly suspected that Iraq had no WMD of any consequence, since otherwise why would they bother lying?

I question either the horse sense or the veracity of all of our representitives who voted for the war. Either they voted for the war for political, CYA-type reasons as opposed to actual national security issues or they are far too gullible. The Bush administration just did NOT present a strong enough case for me to believe someone intelligent honestly thought Hussein had things like a nuclear weapons program, or remote controlled drones capable of spraying poison gas in the Continental US. Remember that it was clear that their case for war was not strong enough to to obtain a second Security Council resolution.

Propaganda saturation of US media explains why so many US citizens were honestly fooled. I expect our Congresspersons to be able to look deeper than just what shows up on the cable newscasts on an issue as important as this.

[themaguffin]

25. I KNEW it was bullshit

The switch from in discussion all of a sudden to Iraq stunk miles away. It was total bullshit.

[blm]

7. Then you weren't paying attention to Henry Gonzalez and Iraqgate in 1991-2

All of us who thought there COULD BE chem and bio weapons still in Iraq knew they were supplied by Poppy Bush. It was whether or not they were STILL there that was the question.

No one knew for certain since 1998, and even Scott Ritter testified to congress in 98 that they were there.

The difference is that none of those Democrats and even most Republicans WOULDN'T have chosen to invade after the reports from weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts were being made FAVORABLE to peaceful resolutions.

[Old and In the Way]

9. How did you know?

I knew there wasn't any, too....but I was only 95% sure of that.

If you or I were wrong, it really doesn't mean much, but for a Congressperson it means a little more. What if another "event" took out a city like, say, Worcester, MA....how would you explain your 'no' vote to your remaining constituents?

Congress relies on the objective, apolitical knowledge of our intelligence to make informed decisions about national security. Typically, we don't have Presidents and an Executive Branch that lie to Congress and the American people to start wars of conquest for other country's natural resources. Fault Democrats for trusting this guy...but Bush was very popular at the time and hadn't yet invaded a country based on lies.

This IWR vote took place a little more than 1 year after 9/11 and a few weeks before the 02 elections. Fault Democrats for trusting this guy...but Bush was very popular at the time and hadn't yet lied about a Casus Belli. Since I'm firmly in the LIHOP/MIHOP camp, in my darkest thoughts, I think the IWR could well have been a political ambush designed to get the Democrats to vote 'no' along Party lines. Recall how this administration was conflating 9/11 and Iraq. After the vote, another huge terrorist event happens on US soil that could be blamed on the Iraqi's. What happens now? Martial law gets declared immediately and the Democrats are painted as the 'Party of Appeasers' by Republicans and their fully owned Corporate Media. We still invade Iraq, but now Bush does it with unlimited power and no cohesive opposition on the foreseeable horizon.

[robinlynne]

22. basically because of reading about the PNAC plan

project for a new american century.
They followed their plan to a t.
It was written way before the war , and it wasn't hard to predict what they would do. We all thought they would plant the WMD. because what they wanted was the war. WMD was never a real issue at all.
I think the reason people "believed" was what psychologists call mass hysteria. How many wars have been created throughout history by a flase sense of nationalism created by a government to strengthen itself (and other reasons, ie money, etc.)?

It is a pretty common thing for "bad' or "tyrannical' (sorry for the lack of a good adjective) governments to do.

[blm]

24. I think you were UNAWARE that Poppy Bush sent chem and bio weapons to Iraq

illegally throughout the 80s and up to Iraq's attack on Kuwait.

Google Iraqgate and Henry Gonzalez, he was one of the best open government Democrats who ever served.

By 1998, no one knew exactly how much of those weapons had been found.

Scott Ritter testified inat a 98 hearing that Saddam was still a threat.

Ritter came to a different conclusion in 2002, but no lawmaker really knew for sure, and THAT is why weapons inspections were put into the IWR.

Even Ron Reagan Jr. would crack jokes about the chem and bio weapons saying we KNOW they're there, we have the receipts.

[robinlynne]

26. and? Were you worried about Iraq? Did you support the invasion?

Did you see a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
Or did it look like a lie with a purpose?
from where I stood, at the time, it looked like a lie.
Also looked like the inspectors were confirming it as a lie, didn't it?

[blm]

27. Don't be absurd - NONE of us supported invading - weapons inspections

proved military force was UNNECESSARY. Why did you change the argument? You didn't know about Iraqgate, did you?

[Cocoa]

58. then you were ahead of Hans Blix

he said that even through March 2003 he didn't know for sure there were no WMD.

[sampsonblk]

90. Yep

It wasn't that complicated. Won some money on it too!

[babylonsister]

2. You continue to try to enlighten, and I thank you for that! nt

[Blaukraut]

5. Thanks, ProSense. Enlightening. n/t

[politicasista]

6. Thanks for the informative post! n/t

[beachmom]

8. This part of Kerry's speech is especially telling

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.


Because our dipshit president blew off the U.N., THAT'S why we're stuck there all alone with the British. The invasion was not legitimate because Bush pulled the inspectors out before their job was complete. I feel more than ever that Kerry's mistake was trusting Bush to do the right thing on this. Colin Powell assured him it would be done right. I'm puzzled why Feingold voted no, when his speech is even more agressive than Kerry's. In October 2002, with the info Kerry had, he did what he thought was right. But the main issue, almost more than the WMD, was the president's complete lack of honesty. It's plain and simple that this president lied, and repeatedly, in the matter of WAR. The gravity of it continues to astound me.

And, to the other poster -- MOST of us against the war thought there were SOME WMD. We just thought that the inspectors could take care of the problem, and we could at least WAIT until the fall before considering invasion. There was very little info out there at the time about the possibility that Saddam had absolutely nothing.

[Skip Intro]

13. It was a RUSH to war. To attack. To invade. To occupy. To seize.

[Old and In the Way]

14. It amazes me how some of the Kerry bashers use arguments that

would be right at home on FreeRepublic. "Well, Democrats voted for the war, too." Hell, Bush has made that pitch.

No, what the Democrats did was provide Bush with the ability to protect our national security interests IF preconditions were met. They weren't and he broke the intent of the resolution and international law.

Worse than that, Bush has set an awful precedent for future Presidents and Congress when real gathering threats might require us speaking with one voice. Next time a President goes before Congress asking for special powers to deal with a rapidly developing national threat, the opposition will be right to remember how this pResident lied to Congress to advance his Party's political/financial agenda. This betrayal by the Executive Branch could effect our ability to react in a united and effective manner in the future. This is the real long term damage Bush has caused our political institutions.

[CTLawGuy]

16. We controlled the Senate

Daschle could have put the IWR in the trash. Are Dems not to be held accountable for their part in anything?

[ProSense]

18. Why would he put the resolution in the trash?

It was designed to hold Bush accountable. This is Bush's illegal war. No amount of twisting is going to make this the Democrats' fault, not even in part!

[CTLawGuy]

28. that's ridiculous and you know it

If it was designed to hold Bush accountable, why did he sign it?!

Why did he reject Biden-Lugar in favor of it?!

It makes no sense.

Was Kennedy not for holding Bush accountable?
Was Feingold not for holding Bush accountable?

That's some of the worst revisionist history I have ever seen.

[ProSense]

32. Pay attention: Bush lies! Now read the speeches in the OP for the

answer to your question about Biden-Lugar.

[CTLawGuy]

34. lying doesn't explain why Bush would sign a bill,

as powerful as he was, that would restrict his ability to go to war.

It was a bill to him bipartisan legitimacy in his war.

[ProSense]

38. You really don't understand do you?

Bush was going through the motions. Answer this question: If only the 49 Republicans and one Independent had signed the legislation, do you think that would have stopped Bush from going to war?

[CTLawGuy]

43. perhaps not

but at least the war wouldn't have been as popular as it was, and the Democrats would actually have been standing up for us.


I hope you're not saying that an inability to stop an action means that those who oppose it should just join up? I'd rather thay vote against it and fail than vote for it becuase they don't think they can oppose it.

[ProSense]

45. Why wouldn't it have been popuplar?

About 80% of the country was cheering it on!


The resolution was an accountablity measure. You seem determined to believe otherwise!

[CTLawGuy]

47. its not surprising everyone was cheering it on when there was only

one side of the debate being communicated.

[ProSense]

54. So are you blaming the Senators who spoke out or the media? n/t

[CTLawGuy]

81. I'm saying not enough people spoke out on our side

Our leaders were going along with Bush. How are you supposed to have a coherent opposition when your own congressional leaders agree with the president?

[Old and In the Way]

23. Did Democrats put a gun to Bush's head and demand that he invade?

I recall the resolution being forced down their throats. If there had been proof that Hussein was sitting on stockpiles of WMDs and they were clearly planned for our consumption, then Bush would have been right to pre-empt their use. But the fact is the UN were not finding any evidence to validate the supposition. The longer no weapons were found, the less justification Bush had to invade. He disregarded the spirit of the IWR and its intent. He invaded with no compellig reason to do so. He is the person who made the decision, not Congress. He's the one that needs to be held accountable.

Democrats simply handed him the rope with which to hang himself with.

[CTLawGuy]

29. they don't have to

they should have tried as hard as they could to keep Bush under control.

Congress has the inherent power to go to war, not the president. Why do you think Bush even bothered with Congress?

If Congress gives the decision to the president, then in my book they are supporting the war, becuase they are abrogating their responsibilities to make this decision themselves, and they know full well that no president asks for authorization to go to war if he doesn't use it.

[Old and In the Way]

31. No argument that Bush is in violation of the IWR.

1

"and they know full well that no president asks for authorization to go to war if he doesn't use it."But without Republicans willing to hold this President accountable...it is a moot point. It will never go out of committee."

Well, they used to know full well that the President was sincere when he said there was a gathering threat to national security. We now know that Bush has broken that trust and is in breech of Congress's qualifications on the IFR. It matters not, if Congress, under control by the Republicans, will not hold this pResident accountable.

[CTLawGuy]

35. If we are supposed to trust the president

then we might as well get rid of Democracy and have a dictatorship.

Come on: we KNEW how bad Bush was in 2000. Why did we fight so hard in FL?

I find it hilarious that some people today act like they were surprised that Bush was a dishonest guy.

[Dr Fate]

57. Anyone who "trusts" Bush is either a liar or an idiot.

It's a great excuse, but I'm done with excuses.

[ProSense]

60. I guess when

Feingold submitted the letter with McCain to Bush to bypass Congress and veto items out of legistlation he was a liar or an idiot!

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1674

[Dr Fate]

63. If you trust Bush, you are an idiot.

If you pretend to trust him, you are a liar.

I knew damn well Bush was lying about Iraq- but then again, I had the internet and 20 spare minutes of time to look up the documented facts.

What- is Finegold supposed to be my infallible Saint now or something? I like and dislike things both men do. I tend to agree with both of them on many big issues.

[ProSense]

64. I think anyone who believes the RW flip-flop meme is an idiot! n/t

[Dr Fate]

66. Perhaps. I dont believe it- I KNOW that swing-voters did though.

Which is one reason why Kerry lost.

He should have listened to the Democratic base and voted "no" but instead he apparently put more stock into Bush's lies and voted "yes."

That was a mistake- the '04 was lost partially as a result of that vote.

Kerry's "yes" vote made the "flip-flopper" meme more believable.

If he had listened to us, he would have voted "no" and the talking point would not have existed.

I wont make excuses for him- he should have voted "no" but he voted "yes."

[ProSense]

68. It not about making excuses

it's about understanding what the resolution was for.

[Dr Fate]

71. He should have voted "no" on that resolution.

I dont need to know what Kerry says he though it was for because I KNOW what Bush KNEW it was for. So did your average voter.

There was not a Joe Sixpack out there, DEM, Repub or other, who did not grasp the fact the vote was ultimately about Bush leading us to war.

All I need to know is that Kerry should have voted "no" based on the fact that he knew or should have known Bush was lying.

[ProSense]

75. Whether or not you want to know what he says,

he still said it. As far as the vote, a lot of people understand that it did not lead to war. That war was Bush's doing! He made the choice!

[Dr Fate]

79. I understand that Kerry voted "yes" but should have voted "no."

I disagree with you that "a lot of people understand that it did not lead to war."

Outside of Du and other microcisms of political junkies, that is simply not true.

Your average Joe thought the vote was about going to war. And then we DID go to war after that vote.

Kerry should have voted "no" on that resolution.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. And now...check the vote.

Ouch!

[Skip Intro]

11. Were they lied to? Is that why the spoke of wmd with such certainty?

Is that now why bush falls back on the "everybody thought saddam had 'em" excuse?

Regardless, it is the bush regime that lied about evidence of wmd in Iraq. It is the bush regime that ordered the inspectors out of Iraq just before the freedom bombs started to fall. It is the bush regime that put on the "shock and awe" spectacle for all the faux news viewers. It is the bush regime that murdered tens of thousands needlessly. Nothing Feingold or Kerry (or even Bill Clinton years before) said can change the fact that it is indeed the bush regime, with bullshit scare tactics of mushroom clouds over American cities and scary UAV's able to reach the US east coast and reconstituted nukes, and mobile chem/bio labs, etc, that gave the order to attack Iraq.

Yeah, maybe Senators were lied to and manipulated into some sort of support for giving bush the power, as a last resort, to attack Iraq, and maybe this all happened in an election year when the thugs on the right were running ads comparing some Dems to osama, but it was, in the end, the bush regime who lied and plotted and killed. Its the bush regime that changed the rationale for their actions over and over again.

This evil, mass-murderous attack, and the bloody fallout, lie sqarely at the feet of the bush regime.

And it seems to me very, very important not to forget that.

[babylonsister]

12. They were lied to alright. Why would Roberts not share the

"Phase II" info on the run-up to war otherwise? And continue to deny Congress the right to view this info?

[ProSense]

15. Support the call for withdrawal

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

[lojasmo]

19. A senator's job is to LEGISLATE.....Tell us the votes...

EH? IIRC, Kerry voted to ALLOW the attack, and Feingold voted NOT to allow the attack.

[ProSense]

20. Kerry voted yes on a resolution to hold Bush accountable, Feingold voted

no on that resolution. No doubt both Senators wanted to hold Bush accountable, see the amendments! (link at OP)

[Rhiannon12866]

21. What Kerry voted for was to give the president the authority

to use force, so he could bring it to the UN and get the inspectors back in, so he could avoid a war and keep the peace. That's what Bush* was saying to Congress, at the time and way too many of them believed him.:-(

Because Kerry was opposed to the war, he subsequently voted against authorizing the $87 billion. But this was the reason for all that hogwash during the campaign about Kerry "voting for the war before he voted against it.":grr:

I only wish that he'd been more explicit in stating his views, and why he voted as he did, at the time, since the American people were never clear on this...:shrug:

As for Feingold, he does his homework, has had the courage of his convictions, and often stands alone.:patriot:

[CTLawGuy]

30. don't you find it odd

that Feingold and Kerry vote opposite ways, and in your view, they are both right?

the IWR did NOT require Bush to go to the UN, just to make an unchallengable, unvetoable determination that diplomacy failed.

[Rhiannon12866]

33. From my perspective, both of them opposed the war.

It's just that Kerry made the initial mistake of believing Bush*, but he was hardly alone in this.:-(

And, if you remember, Bush* was talking diplomacy until the last minute. I still remember him urging Congress to support him, to "keep the peace." What we didn't know then was that he intended an invasion from the beginning, had the troops already in place. The change came when he sent Colin Powell to the UN, to argue his case. Since Powell was the only one who insisted on a diplomatic solution, and we now know he was sent in with bogus information, his actions both shocked and baffled me...:shrug:

on edit: quote from IWR, October 10, 2002:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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

[robcon]

36. More revisionist history

And, if you remember, Bush* was talking diplomacy until the last minute.

No he wasn't. He was talking war, war, war.

What we didn't know then was that he intended an invasion from the beginning, had the troops already in place.

We did know that. Feingold knew that. Kerry knew that, but he chose to vote for war anyway because it seemed to be the best position for a potential presidential candidate, IMO.

As long as we're quoting the IWR...

"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." ...

"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."

[ProSense]

39. Speaking of revisionist history

You forgot to bold "in order to" and the specifics of the 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.



And you forgot the War Powers Resolution:

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.

[CTLawGuy]

41. will you please bold the language

"last resort" and "imminent threat" in the statute.

I can't seem to find them.

The US constitution says the president cannot go to war on his own except in very limited circumstances which do not apply here.

[ProSense]

44. Show me where it declares war?

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

Bush was required to prove that diplomacy alone could not protect the U.S national security. He lied and violated the resolution.

[CTLawGuy]

49. no

he is required to "determine" which is not "prove". "Prove" is when you convince another that something is true. "Determine" is when you decide something is true.

And you have highlighted nothing that suggests that war is a "last resort" or that the threat must be "imminent". You have "ongoing" which is not the same.

----------------------
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

-----------------------------------------
It gave him the power to use the troops and start the war.

[ProSense]

53. Bush violated the resolution

All the criteria had to be met and Bush had to prove that they were met, not just say they were met. This is why, in light of opposition, Bush falsified the evidence and continually repeated that Iraq was imminent threat and linked Iraq to al Qaida.

The threat was neither imminent or real, the inspectors hadn't completed their job and were pleading to continue, Iraq wasn't linked to terrorism, and Congressional leaders were warning against the war before it was launch.

Bush violated the resolution. It's simple as that.

[CTLawGuy]

77. no, he didn't have to prove anything

NT

[ProSense]

83. Yes he did.

The president doesn't just say I'm ready to start a war now because I want to!

[CTLawGuy]

97. that's basically what he did

and people here were claiming (now, not in 2002) that he would just do it anyway even if he didn't have a resolution, so thus is it excusable to have voted for the resolution.

[CTLawGuy]

37. Kerry

voted against the first gulf war in 1990. (a VERY similar resolution actually)

Voted FOR the IWR in 2002.

Not running for president in 1990.
Running for president in 2002.

That's how I see things.


The choice to go to war should NOT be put in the hands of the president EVER. That's exactly what this stupid resolution did. Voting for it was no different than voting for war itself, because Congress implicitly made the choice to go to war when they gave their power away to the president.

[ProSense]

40. They were completely different!

(102nd Congress
00002 12-Jan S.J.Res. 2 On the Joint Resolution Agreed to S.J.Res.2; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution )

snip...

Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and

The difference was that Bush Sr. got Congress to included a deadline---a date after which using force would be authorized---in the resolution. That's why Kerry made his speech and voted against it. He even emphasized that in the speech saying the date was made war more likely.

The current IWR did not include a date, Bush set that date arbitrarily and that violated the IWR. The current IWR was in line with Kerry's thinking all along. He voted for a resolution that required Bush Jr. to meet specific criteria laid out by Congress, report back. It did not give Bush authority to go to war, something Kerry has refused to do---cede Congressional powers to the president.

[CTLawGuy]

42. Yes I agree, it did fit with Kerry's thinking

"I want to be prez really bad!"

Besides that...

How did Bush setting a date to go to war violate IWR???

It didn't give bush authority to go to war? Then why was it called the "authorization to use military force?"

Bush had one criteron to meet and that was to give a conclusory statement (that means a statement that is not accompanied by any supporting facts) that he thought diplomacy would fail. That's hardly a real restriction. There is no way to veto or challenge the determination and there is no demand that it be backed up by facts.

[ProSense]

46. What are you talking about?

The date is in the first resolution.

[CTLawGuy]

48. you said Bush was allowed to set a date

I don't see how that is relevant. What does it matter if Congress sets a date for the resolution to be effective versus presumably having it effective immediately by having no date at all.

[ProSense]

51. It was an effective date for war, not the resolution. n/t

[Dr Fate]

50. Ahhh- the famous "I didnt have a computer" excuse.

Anyone who had a computer and knew how to use "Google" had all the proof they needed to know that Bush was lying. I knew it. I was ready to bet my soul on it.

I support Kerry on many issues- but lets stop making excuses for him.

Bottom line- he should have sided with his base & voted "no" but instead he sided with Bush & false media driven public perception and voted "yes." Period. That is what he did. Period.

Let's not reward DEMs by making excuses for them- lets say "you were dead wrong" when they are wrong and support 100% them when they are right.

[ProSense]

55. You're right!

I sure that's where Patrick Fitzgerald is finding his evidence. Let's google the
election fraud investigation too!

:sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

56. Evidence that Bush was lying was all over the interent and world press

It's true- a google search would show anyone unrefuted evidence that Bush presented forged evidence to the UN, and then continued to lie about it. That fact has nothing to do with your Fitz & Diebold strawmen.

Am I wrong? If so, how?

Apparently Kerry and others either knew about but ignored Bush's own statements, forgeries and plagerized documents, or they did not know about the forgeries & lies, perhaps due to not having a computer.

One or the other.

The info I speak of on the internet & world press was 100% right- who ever Kerry was listening to was 100% wrong- so I fail to see much of a point in your argument.

Bottom line-he should have voted "no" but he voted "yes." Period.

[ProSense]

59. Because

I don't know what evidence led Feingold to make this statement:

And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons...

We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein.

Because ALL the Senators voted yes on one amendment or another citing Iraq's WMD (link at OP)


Because the resolution was designed to hold bush accountable. The IWR states "in order to" and the specifies "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 threat was not imminent, not real, the inspectors hadn't completed their job and were pleading to continue, Iraq wasn't linked to terrorism, and Congressional leaders were warning against the war before it was launch.

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 (meeting the criteria) 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.

Bush simply created the evidence and urgency.


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.


The question is: If only the 49 Republicans and one Independent had signed the legislation, do you think that would have stopped Bush from going to war?

[Dr Fate]

61. Bottom line: Kerry should have voted "no."

Kerry voted "yes"- but should have voted "no." Period.

The evidence in the world press (available on any computer with the internet) that proved Bush was presenting forged documents and was lying was solid, and factual. Period.

Kerry's "yes" vote gave him the "flip-flopper" label and helped cost him the election.

These excuses do absolutely nothing for me anymore- absolutely nothing.

As it is, I support Kerry and I forgive him for his wrong-headed vote- but damned if I'm going to revise history for him- if he had a computer, he knew Bush was lying, period.

Kerry voted "yes" but should have voted "no." Period.

[ProSense]

62. These are not excuses.

People believing all the BS the media and the RW were spewing cost him the election. One could say people trusting Bush, the MSM and the RW's characterization of Kerry put Bush back in the WH. Period!

[Dr Fate]

65. Kerry should have voted "no" instead of "yes."

Then exaplaining his position to swing-voters would not have been so impossible. Believe me- I tried. When I was campaigning, I gave them the long exaplanations you give too- their response :

"Er- yeah- but what I want to know is whether Kerry is for the war or not-which is it?"

Kerry could have made the election about how Bush is a lying sack of shit on defense instead of it being about how he may or may not be a "flip-flopper."

He should have voted "no" but instead he voted "yes." Period.

[ProSense]

67. So did these people

vote for Bush as a result of not understanding that the resolution was designed to hold Bush accountable?

Or did they simply not vote and allowed Bush to capture the WH?


And I guess they missed everything Kerry said, all his speeches and the debates?


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

[Dr Fate]

69. Kerry lost. Probably a little of both.

And yes, I'm sure swing-voters did miss quite a few of his speeches, etc. I would imagine most of them did not read much DU either.

If Kerry had voted "no" instead of "yes" most of the confusion & misrepresentations on this issue would have been avoided.

But even without a Presidential race, I still think Kerry should have voted "no" instead of "yes."

[ProSense]

72. If a voter

was against the war, even leaning in that direction, I doubt they voted for Bush.

[Dr Fate]

76. They dont call 'em swing-voters & fence sitters for nothing.

Some of them wound up voting for the guy who they thought was more consistent.

Just like many conservatives and moderates used to vote for Paul Wellstone- because he was at least viewed as consistent.

If you are honestly arguing that Kerry's "yes" vote did not have an effect on the election one way or the other, then we will just have to disagree.

[ProSense]

80. That's not what I'm saying.

I said if the voter was against the war, I doubt that vote went to Bush. If someone supported keeping American troops in Iraq, that vote likely went to Bush.

[Dr Fate]

86. Many swingvoters did not percieve 2 different choices on the matter

Kerry's "yes" vote did not open the door to two different choices on the war- as far as many swingvoters percieved.

"Swing voters" who MIGHT have been convinced to oppose the war had the perception, whether wrongly or not, that both candidates were "for" the war- or that Bush was "for it" and that Kerry "could not make up his mind."


If Kerry had voted "no" none of that would have happened.

[ProSense]

88. It's interesting that

even though most people were for the war, even in the days leading up to the election, they wanted the troops to stay. If Kerry had voted no and had lost, the vote would be blamed for the lost. So I think Kerry weighed the evidence and voted accordingly. Although Kerry and other Democrats are taking responsibility for their vote, the outcome still was determined by Bush.

[Dr Fate]

93. I'll just give that to you. n/t

n/t

[Mass]

70. Simple answer to your question. He was against the war and

said so, but considering Bush was president, his vote was definitively the wrong vote. He has since accepted clearly that this vote was the wrong vote and that, whatever his intentions were in casting it, he in effect gave Bush the possibility to do what he did. (this is what accountability means: recognize the effects of his actions whether he intented the effects to happen or not).

This is my personnal opinion on this. (It is not even about the elections or not - it is about being accountable of what you do - Kerry understands perfectly that).

Where I depart with some people on DU is that they say Kerry WANTED war. Whatever his vote (added of course to all the other ones) eventually led to, I dont believe he WANTED war.

[Dr Fate]

73. He should have voted "no" if he did not want Bush to start a war.

But instead, he voted "yes."

If you think they are going to read pages of speech transcripts-or even listen to a campaign worker paraphrase it- you are mistaken.

This is how your average swing-voter or moderate sees things.

I forgive Kerry, but I'm not going to re-write history for him. If he really did not want Bush to start a war, then he should have voted "no" instead of "yes."

[Mass]

74. I think we agree - Dont jump on me. I said it was the wrong vote.

[Dr Fate]

84. Sorry- I'm not meaning to jump on you personally.

I'm just tired of all the excuses.

Excuses dont pay the bills and they dont win elections.

[Mass]

85. I could not agree more.

[LittleClarkie]

78. Something he himself acknowledges, and has accepted responsibility for

He can't undo it now.

I do wish the damn vote wouldn't keep coming up when his name is mentioned. It gets kinda monotonous after a while. Esp. now that Kerry's full tilt against the war now.

[Dr Fate]

82. I agree- that's why I refuse to join in the excuses/ revisionism.

The best postion is to come clean and stop blowing smoke up people's asses on this.

[LittleClarkie]

87. Indeed. Should he have voted no. In hindsight, yes.

Did he vote yes for purely political reasons as some claim and not because he made an honest decision and an honest mistake. That's debatable, and I have been known to debate it. But I know Kerry regrets his vote and I do wish we could get past the thing.

[ProSense]

89. Yes in hindsight!

When it comes down to it, if everyone knew that the evidence was false, the resolution would never have come up for a vote!

Like you said, Kerry is against the war and that is what matters now!

[Dr Fate]

92. I'll agree with your last sentence- but it makes the whole thread moot.

That is what matters now- so why rehash & revise the past?

Arguing that it was a good idea to vote yes and at the same time arguing that it's good Kerry is "now" opposed to the war will appear inconsistent.

And I disagree with your 1st sentence- enough normal, everyday people like me read the news about the forged documents and the lies in the SOTU speech- surely plenty of Congressmen knew about it too- unless they did not have computers.

That fact sort of takes away the "I was just trusting the President" argument.

I'll leave it at that. The last word is yours if ya want it.

[Dr Fate]

91. The Democratic base had the foresight to ask him to vote "no."

So I disagree that it required hindsight to know Bush was lying.

[rhett o rick]

96. Sorry to disagree. Can't get past this because it goes to the very

core of representation. You say Kerry (and others) made a mistake. Agree. But I believe their mistake was listening to their advisor's that said it would be political suicide to vote against the war. PLease don't tell me you actually believe that Kerry and others believed in the GWB lie. They should have insisted on evidence. There was not one shred of evidence. So why did they think there were WMD or might be. Why didn't they insist on waiting until there was proof. No, they were advised to vote for the war and they did.
At least Kerry regrets that decision, Clinton and Cantwell stand by their support for the neocons and their war that has destroyed democracy in this Country.

In a representative form of government the voters send representatives to Washington to do the right thing not the popular thing. Wouldn't need representatives if we were going to go with the popular decision. They fail us and we may never recover. Some how I can't get past that.

[demdiva]

52. Excellent Post

If I was allowed to recommend it I would!

[rhett o rick]

94. It is important to note that they both spoke like they thought there

were WMD in Iraq. We know there is no evidence of WMD now and none then. So what evidence or what else did they base their decisions on??? I believe their advisor's told them that in spite of the fact there was no evidence and in spite of the fact that GWB is a big fat liar, their only option was to go along. If they didn't go along and WMD happened to be found (even though there was no evidence) they would look terrible. I haven't yet been convinced that they were fooled by GWB. They choose, based on advice, to go along instead of doing the right thing. The consequences have killed democracy.

Would you go to war with no evidence, based on the word of GWB?

[Radical Activist]

95. Kucinich and the Democrats who voted "No" in Congress knew.

No, not everyone in Congress fell for Bush's lies. Don't whitewash history to make excuses for Kerry.