IWR-- I said it then, I'll say it again

[BeFree]

The Dems, when it came to the IWR, either chose to vote NO or voted yes to giving * just enough rope to hang himself with. Well, he has just about hung himself, now, hasn't he?

I said then that the * Iraqi plan was akin to a speeding train that no one was going to stop. Everyone now knows that the plan was launched right after the * gang began squatting the White House.

I said then that what was in the resolution was a clause that would make * go to the UN to get the UN's support for any military action. Well, he did go to the UN. The UN told him to go fly a kite. The UN did not support the * gang invasion. In fact, the UN people said that they thought the WMD were nowhere to be found in Iraq. So what happened was that * evaded congress' resolution and like everything else they have done, used lies and deceit to make their pitiful case.

To sum it up: Enough rope was played out against an unstoppable train wreck....the train crashed through the UN....no WMD have been found...
and the squatter in the White House is being hung out to dry. Case closed.

[DannyRed]

1. Playing

political games with the lives of thousands of people, the fortunes of an entire nation, the blood and sweat and pain of entire peoples...

Is NOT ok.

That was a time to register opposition, regardless of the costs.

Sorry, that explanation is facile, wrong, inaccurate, and, if true, extremely offensive and disturbing.

[For PaisAn]

3. you got that right

It's BS. Those who didn't stand up are complicit.

[BeFree]

65. Who is really complicit?

The consumption of oil in the US has not dropped since IWR.

The $400Bn a year military budget has not gone down since IWR. Most of the military itself, supports IWR. Most of the troops on the ground in IRAQ support IWR.

I haven't heard of anyone saying they will give up oil due to IWR. Or stop paying their taxes which enable the worlds largest military to do such a dastardly thing.

I have heard some citizens say: 'Turn all of it into glass'. Where is the outrage?

This country has, since the IWR, voted to install even more pugs in congress. And Florida re-installed Jeb.

Where is the outrage? Who is not complicit?

[redqueen]

84. No, the country did not vote to install more pugs

Pugs won because democrats didn't bother voting for their republican enabling reps.

[BeFree]

4. The pugs voted 100% for war

The pugs should get the greater wrath.

These guys are politicians. The politics of the unstoppable train required positions that would be able to be explained to the constituents back home. I figure most people back home wanted something to be done in Iraq.

I wish a vote could be taken today using the hindsight that all of us now know. The vote, I'm sure, would be much different. I wished it had been different then.

*'s popularity was running about 80% at the time of the IWR. That's a pretty deadly number for the political opposition. The best that could be done, under the circumstances, was to offer just enough rope and hope for the best. * delivered the worst possible outcome. Iraq is his fault, and his fault alone.

* will hang for his deceits, and for using the IWR so radically.

[revcarol]

6. A case of "my hands are bloody," but " your hands are bloodier?"

Sorry, they had the chance to be leaders like Kucinich, and they blew it.Damn these gutless wonders.

[corporatewhore]

19. Actually some pugs voted no like ron paul

[BeFree]

20. You are correct...

...I was refering to Senators, IIRC.

Ron Paul ain't really a pug, though. He just runs as one to get elected, is what I hear.

[DannyRed]

22. And you would still be WRONG.

Jeffords (former GOP) and Chaffee (Still GOP)

BOTH voted against the IWR.

Talk about conviction, cojones, bravery, and principles - these guys felt more heat than ANY democrat and STILL voted their conscience and their constituents's desires.

Would that more Democrats had so much courage.

[BeFree]

24. Chafee voted no?

Hmmm, so 98% of pugs voted yes.

It is real easy to sit here and say how a senator should have voted. And believe me, it makes me ill that the IWR passed, but I am not a senator. What if * had been truthful? (I know...big if) But what if he had, and the US went in with the UN in such a way as that IRAQ was not such a clusterfuck? Then you'd have a whole bunch of Americans claiming that the Dems were soft on defense because they didn't support *.

We all know, and most of us knew then, what would happen from an Iraq invasion. Well, that just proves we were right. Yes, we were right and a bunch of politicians got it wrong! Not the first time, eh? But all along, * had the responsibility to get it right. He didn't. He is to blame for Iraq. Not the Dems.

[Leilani]

40. Your discussion about this issue bothers me greatly

You make it sound as if the Senators were voting on a road construction bill, or some other nonsensical item.

This was a question of war, preemptive war, the 1st in our country's history.

Yet you talk about political considerations, as if that is a justifiable excuse for voting for a war, that they knew was wrong.

Senator Chafee knew it was wrong; he hasn't been a Senator all that long, but he votes his conscience, which means many times he votes against his party. If he had the guts to vote NO, why didn't he Dems?

Unfortunately, your post makes it all too clear; it was a political vote, & I say shame on them. Problem is, they have no shame.

[BeFree]

66. It is, however, a discussion we must have

You wrote: "Problem is, they have no shame". I agree.

Yes, this was a political vote. No doubt. It is politics, ya know. It's also a nasty game, a game presently controlled by the pugs. The Dems can not take their ball and go home, leaving the pugs alone.

We are talking about two different things here. One is the IWR vote on the senate floor, and the other is the madman's control over the military. Lets not confuse the two.

The IWR vote was a political decision. A decision that tortured the Dem politicians but not the pugs. It did not go the way we preferred. Agreed?

The subsequent miss-use of that senate decision, by the White House, is where the focus should be fixed. B* could have, NOT invaded Iraq. He could have stayed the Iraqi course his father and Clinton had set. He alone is responsible for his actions.

[IrateCitizen]

60. WHO GIVES A F*** WHO IS TO "BLAME"???

This isn't about "blame". This is about moral courage to stand up and do what you can to stop this train wreck from occurring. Do you seriously not see the problem with the approach you advocate?

This "blame game" just makes me sick. This is not a game. This is about people's lives. If you feel perfectly comfortable playing games with people's lives, then I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of person that I want to be associated with.

[Forkboy]

79. A freakin men!

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

83. EXACTLY!

Thank you!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

25. Remember-over 60% of Merkins said we should nuke Iraq if it used WMD.

I don't remember the source but I distinctly remember reading a poll before the official Iraq invasion which asked "what should be the US level of response be to Iraq using WMD against our troops."

Good old God fearing generous Americans by overwhelming majority responded that the US should escalate to NUCLEAR FUCKING BOMBS. This is almost enough to make you glad that there isn't real democracy in this country. Hell-people might vote to bring back slavery!

Congress is supposed to be the safety mechanism whereby the tyranny of a fear-driven majority is restrained by Constitutional principles. But sometimes Congress acts in fear of the public's fear and a feedback loop develops. To use a recent Super Bowl phrase, a War Drub Mishap occurs.

SO-Here's the harsh ugly truth that our 'elected' officials assume when they consider military issues:

Americans would rather see thousands of foreigners die 'just in case' rather than risk a single American life. Not all but a decisive number of Americans. The national identity instilled in us from birth is that we are >Superman Jesus in a Cowboy hat<. This is very close to a master race complex like Germany's between WWI and WWII.

So Kerry, for instance, having been officially informed (yes, lied to but it doesn't matter if he believed it or not) that intelligence indicated an imminent threat to his constituents, probably reasoned thusly-

He was obliged to approve the potential slaughter of foreigners (with lots of righteous qualifiers, of course) rather than risk the scenario of WMD turning up in Iraq (not totally unlikely) and him having voted against the action.

That scenario would've reinforced the Republican meme that Democrats are 'soft on defense,' he and like voting Democrats would lose their seats letting the neocons rule for decades or forever. An ethical sacrifice bunt to avoid forfeiting the game entirely. Realpolitik in propagandized and post-9/11 traumatised America. Instead, he's now leading Bush* in the polls and can claim to be the next driver of the largest defense budget on the planet. That doesn't comfort the 10,000 or 200,000 dead Iraqis but it might be better news for the rest of the planet.

Murderous? You bet. Once it is clear that blood will flow, the choice comes down to whose it will be.

But I'm afraid that condemning those who voted for the IWR is also condemning their constituents-our Fallow Merkins share in the complicity.

Unfortunately context is still important in public morality these days , not just absolute value. Maybe someday...

[The Magistrate]

100. Well Said, Mr. Memory!

Your analysis of the political context at the time is excellent. This cannot be disregarded. Persons who attempt to do so have little of use to contribute to discussion of elections.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Old and In the Way]

26. Absolutely right.

Republicans controlled both Houses. where is their outrage at being lied to? The same place their outrage is on the Plame affair, the 9/11 investigation, and the lies on WMD.

The short is they are the Party of cowards and co-conspirators. It's their President and his administration that's destroying this country and they are all scared shitless of DeLay.

Why aren't the Republican voters holding their Party responsible for the actions of this administration?

[JVS]

35. 1 Republican voted against the war.

Lincoln Chafee

[maxr4clark]

28. I couldn't agree more, DannyRed!

[regnaD kciN]

42. You've got that right...

According to iraqbodycount.net, civilian casualties of George and Dick's Excellent Adventure total between 8,235 and 10,079. For those who can't conceive of civilian deaths unless they involve people who look just like us, imagine three 9/11s, one after the other. That's how many men, women, and children (and you can bet the majority fall into the latter two categories) gave their lives so that Bush could strut in a padded flight suit, Cheney could grab his oil, the PNAC could achieve simultaneous war-gasms, and a whole gaggle of gutless Democrats could position themselves as "moderates."

There's more than enough blood of innocents to stain if not cover everyone's hands...and John Kerry and John Edwards are no exceptions.

:puke:

[IndianaGreen]

57. 532 dead GIs, 3003 wounded GIs, over 10,000 Iraqi casualties

plus 58 British KIAs, and 41 from other nations, and those are the numbers from yesterday!

Like you DannyRed, I find the "enough rope to hang" rationale for the IWR vote to be extremely offensive and disturbing.

Congress cannot shirk its responsibility for the Iraq war and the ensuing carnage by blaming everything on Bush. Bush lied, but Congress was an accomplice in the lie!

[IrateCitizen]

59. And I fervently second your point, IG

I find this rationalization of enabling wanton death and destruction for the purpose of scoring political points to be more than a bit disturbing. As a deeply spiritual person, I find it to be overwhemingly saddening and offensive.

If respect for human life has reached such a low in BOTH major parties, I seriously tremble for our future.

[BeFree]

67. Ya know what? It's politics

I didn't design it. It's not in my control. My attempt on this thread is to describe the process that took place, and not to place moral value on the outcome.

But when I do look at it from a moral angle, it sickens me to know how things have transpired over the years to allow such an invasion as this to even be possible!. It isn't just this one vote that led to the invasion. It was years and years in the making.

Just about everyone in the US is complicit to a degree. But there is only one man who pulled the switch. He could have chose not too. He alone is the most complicit.

Once he is gone, we work to destroy the foundations of war, yes?

[IrateCitizen]

68. If it's not in your control, then why try and justify it?

Why not, instead, direct your energies in directions that you DO have some kind of control, and therefore can change things -- no matter how slightly?

Instead, you have chosen to direct your energies toward convincing people that support for an immoral, imperialist campaign was somehow justified because of amorphous, noble "ends". In so doing, you are only helping to consolidate such a sickness of conscience, that you profess to abhor.

Working to destroy the foundations of war is not some exercise to put off to a later date. It is an ongoing struggle -- not to gain conquest over some outside force, but to win out over the demons that reside in each one of our hearts. If you make the mistake of putting it off (or, worse yet, rationalizing its justification), you are allowing it to take hold on your heart.

Sorry, but I won't join in such self-destructiveness borne out of the arrogance of human "reason" with you. Others here might, but not me.

[BeFree]

71. Not justifying anything

Just describing a small part of the process that got us here.

I do not take responsibility for that process.

To describe me as someone who supports the immoral decision made by * to invade is so far whacked that it really isn't worth replying too. That assertion is the worst kind of personal attack, and one I thought was banned from this forum.

[IrateCitizen]

73. This is your justification, BeFree -- from your original post

I said then that what was in the resolution was a clause that would make * go to the UN to get the UN's support for any military action. Well, he did go to the UN. The UN told him to go fly a kite. The UN did not support the * gang invasion. In fact, the UN people said that they thought the WMD were nowhere to be found in Iraq. So what happened was that * evaded congress' resolution and like everything else they have done, used lies and deceit to make their pitiful case.

To sum it up: Enough rope was played out against an unstoppable train wreck....the train crashed through the UN....no WMD have been found...
and the squatter in the White House is being hung out to dry. Case closed.

"Case closed," as you said. Everything has worked out according to the grand plan. If this isn't an attempt to justify the "yes" votes, I really don't know what is.


And I really don't see the need to engage in such hyperbole: "To describe me as someone who supports the immoral decision made by * to invade is so far whacked that it really isn't worth replying too. That assertion is the worst kind of personal attack, and one I thought was banned from this forum."

If you can't see the difference between criticizing the process by which you arrived at your conclusions and actually criticizing you, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

[BeFree]

76. You win...

I am wrong to try and describe how the vote transpired.

Ya know, when ya think about it..... just being in politics justifies everything that happens. That's why people don't get involved. If they stay out of it, they can't be blamed for what happens.

I accept my responsibility for what happened. Yes, I have blood on my hands. Are you happy now?

[IrateCitizen]

77. No, I'm not happy now

Because, since I pay taxes that contribute to the war machine, I have that same blood on MY hands.

I think that how the vote transpired is something that has been explored ad nauseum here. I just don't think that there was any kind of grand foresight along the lines of "let's give him enough rope with which to hang himself". Rather, I think that many of the people who case "yes" votes did so out of short-term political self-interest.

That's not an indictment on the politicians, per se. That's an indictment on our society at large. Have we so devolved to the point that short-term self-interest is accepted as the status quo? Have we lost the capacity to strive toward moral courage and long-term foresight?

While it may be true that when people enter the political sphere they ARE somewhat compromised -- because, after all, compromise is the name of the game -- it does not mean that they have to compromise away themselves and their morality in the process. That's just the way I see the IWR having played out.

[tinanator]

61. 3003?

where did you get that number? I am continually hearing 9,000+. So I am just curious where the best source for stats might be?

[IndianaGreen]

64. From lunaville

It has good links to the military:

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

[Democrats unite]

2. Case reopened!

The World was screaming this is wrong! Half of America was screaming this is wrong! A seasoned Senator from MA said this is right! I have a big problem with this and so should everyone else! Bush was going to do what Bush wanted to do, all Kerry & Edwards did was to legitimize Bush's actions. People seem to forget this though.

[countmyvote4real]

7. Thank you. That's why Kerry and/or Edwards will lose.

And we lose again.

[tinanator]

62. may very well be why Gore had to lose

In retrospect I can see the Democratic power structure throwing in with GW and the SCOTUS because the plan ALL ALONG was get Iraq. This may be the only logical explanation for what happened in 2000. Gore refused to participate.

[zoeyfong]

8. I will not forget. How many more unnecessary wars will kerry get us into?

It is more than a little dismaying that so many dems are willing (and eager) to give kerry and edwards passes on this. Anything to win, I guess. Thing is, i don't think there are all these people in the middle who are thinking about voting democrat, and the kerry/edwards pro-war vote is going to be the thing that brings them in. I don't think that that demographic exists. I see the possibility of kerry losing a lot of anti-war votes on the left, starting with mine.

[BeFree]

9. Edwards, maybe, Kerry...NO

Who, besides us libruls, were not so fooled by *? Not many. It is the * administrations fault that things turned out so horribly in Iraq. If one reads the IWR, it is clear that * did not follow it and even screwed it as he has most everything else. It is his fault the Iraqi invasion took place. Don't blame anyone else, please.

I am a pacifist. I am abhorred by the Iraqi invasion. But in reading the IWR, I came to realize that if the intent of it was not so screwed by the * gang, following it would have IRAQ turn out a whole lot better than it is today.

[DannyRed]

13. Please rephrase

your last post.

It makes no sense.

1) MILLIONS of people were "not fooled".

2) Before the IWR, and before the big media push, the country was evenly divided in general, and in specific, was OPPOSED to going into Iraq without the explicit blessing and support of the UN.

3) The IWR was designed to do TWO things: 1) To give W the carte blanche needed to declare war with the blessing of congress. and 2) to leverage the UN into forced support for the war by putting the imprimatur of congress on the war plans.

In short, it was a clear, obvious and blatant permission slip.

Kerry signed it.

IF Kerry did so as a means of "giving the GOP and W enough rope" (something that I HIGHLY doubt) then he is guilty of playing political power games, sacrificing American soldiers and Iraqi people as pawns in a grand strategy to win an election. That is even MORE disgusting than the more obvious, more logical scenarios, which are A) that Kerry was either tricked/bamboozled by the GOP lies, or was B) too cowardly to stand up...even when Byrd, Wellstone, Kennedy, Leahy, Chafee, Jeffords and others WERE willing to stand up.

There is NO WAY to explain it away.

Stop trying.

[Old and In the Way]

23. I'll give it a try.

This question will come up if Kerry/Edwards are the nominees and it deserves to be asked and to be explained. Frankly, neither man will be able to state what I believe is the underlining basis of their vote:

If I was a sitting Democrat facing the IWR vote, I'd be thinking about the 9/11 attack that was not openly investigated and I'd be
remembering the Anthrax attack on Daschele. I also am considering that the President has potential dictatorial powers with the HS/Patriot Acts.

I'm wondering what the trap is if we voted solidly antiwar on IWR? Did that many Democrats all really think Iraq was an imminent threat? Did they think Iraq was a threat at all? I suspect not. They certainly had the Democratic base behind them and under normal circumstances they might have held out and said prove it.

But they didn't....why?


They may not explain it to us, but I really think that it was a vote for democratic preservation. If they had voted their gut, the vote is solidly Partyline.

Then, what if there's another terrorist event in the US? No time to react, martial law declared. Quite quickly:


(1) FBI/CIA Event investigation concludes (in 24 hours) that it was Saddam's fault with help from OBL/AQ.
(2) Republican Corporate Media Machine blames the "Party of Terrorist Appeasers".
(3) War is declared immediately on Iraq...no questions asked...Bush gets the 9/11 bounce.
(4) Democrats are pooched in the 2002 midterms, bigtime. And in 2004, we don't have Democrats screaming that Bush lied about WMD.

So the D's did the next best thing....they qualified the shit out of the resolution and handed George the rope in which to hang himself.

If you believe LIHOP/MIHOP, that means that you believe this administration to one degree or another has the blood of 3000 innocent Americans on their hands. If they were guilty, would they not construe a vote on IWR to produce the outcome I've underlined?

[BeFree]

27. Nice job, Old and In the Way

Ya know, it was a game the Dems did not wnat to play, but play, they must.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Am I wrong on this? It seems there's been a war on Democrats

for many years, starting with the Clinton impeachment. You have a Republican Party so corrupt and criminally exposed, that I have no doubt that this was a set-up.

Kerry voted against the 1st War and there was an invasion of Iraq that would have covered is lust for war, but he didn't then...why?
Because everything was different this time with the administration and the Republican Party. 9/11 changed everything and a would be dictator doesn't ram HS/Patriot Act down our throats unless he's got plans of becoming one.

It was a Hobson's choice for the sitting Democrats....vote for and get your base pissed off at you or vote yes and watch the political institution of democracy get snuffed.

[BeFree]

32. You are correct

Throw out the 9/11 card and everything is different.

And yeah, looking at the big picture, there does seem to be a clear intent to design strategies that force Dems into taking positions that are lose/lose propositions.

Ya know, I kinda chuckled when the VRWC was first laid out. But I'm beginning to feel that it is a real and present danger to our democracy. Beginning, hell, I am dead certain of it. They will make slaves of us all if we let them.

BTW...Old and In the Way, IIRC, you were the first to welcome ol' BeFree to DU some two and a half years ago. Thanks again. I've enjoyed your many words here.

[DannyRed]

31. Trying very hard

not to be snarky and offensive here,

But in response to a straigtforward political analysis, you put forward a conspiracy theory in which smart Democrats prevented a complete, blatant subversion of Democracy by very trickily giving the GOP majority and the GOP president everything they wanted, up to and including a blank check?

Sorry, but that is pretty much silly fantasy.

The FACTS are that a large number of Democrats, a Republican, and a former Republican now Independent voted NAY.

The FACTS are that the evidence to support the war party was slim to none.

Testimony in favor was lame and hyped and false - demonstrably false BEFORE the vote.

Testimony opposed was compelling, came from many sources including former and present generals, former and present inspectors, and numerous intelligence agents and analysts.

The FACTS are that EVEN WITH the capitulation by the Democrats, we got SMEARED in 2002, in the House, in the Senate and in Governorships.

Conspiracy theories about 9-11 are hogwash.

Conspiracy theories about IWR are hogwash.

And superhero folk-tales about how Klever Kerry and Endearing Edwards saved the Republic by giving Bush uncontested, untrammelled power to Declare War whenever he wanted, wherever he wanted are equally hogwash.

[BeFree]

33. I wished I knew what to say....

The description of so many well discussed on DU issues as mere 'hogwash' frankly leaves me flabbergasted. Ya mean that there is no concerted effort to destroy the Democratic Party, and Democracy itself? That we should all just base our whole politics on one yay, or nay vote, and to hell with everything else?

Flabbergasted.

[Old and In the Way]

34. So you agree with Condi, right?

"We never dreamed that they'd fly planes into buildings".

Hey, I see no reason why I'd not vote for George Bush, if I were you.

[DannyRed]

36. Do I agree with Condi Rice???

Are you fucking kidding me?

9-11 was a conspiracy by terrorists.

Incompetence and inattention on the part of the executive, his advisors and cabinet, and by the upper echelons in the FBI, INS, CIA, DIA, and other places resulted in the "slipping through the cracks" of numerous warnings, oblique and direct, as well as numerous people.

The right was not involved in the conspiracy itself, but they are certainly involved in a frantic attempt to make their own incompetence and inactivity "disappear", to blame failures on previous administrations or on the Intel services.

They are also involved in trying to take political advantage of 9-11, both to cement their numerical advantage in the legislative branch, and to impose their view of foreign and domestic security policy on the nation.

BUT, to say that cleverly voting for the Iraq War was the way that Kerry et al saved us all from the nefarious conspiracy is pure balogna.

And, when I call you on fantasies and far-out conspiracies used in facile fashion to defend an indefensible argument, you call me a republican?

I think you lose the argument, sir or madam.

Have a nice day!

[Old and In the Way]

37. Did you think "Arms for Hostages" was a conspiracy?

How about Iran/Ccontra? How about the funding of RW death squads in South America in 70s and 80s? Wanna blame that on "slipping through the cracks, too?"

If we'd do it in South America, why would you not think the next logical step is to bring it home? It is the same cast of criominals, you know?

And I totally agree that 9/11 was a conspiracy by terrorists....I just don't know whether they were wearing turbins, suits and ties, or both.

And DannyRed, if you want to apologize and find excuses for this administration, go for it. It's still a free country.

:-)

[DannyRed]

38. Once again,

Taken aback by the amount of gall and the degree of smarminess inherent in your charge that because I do not agree with you, that I must therefore be supporting or excusing the criminals inhabiting the white house.

I was on the front lines of the fight against funding the contras.

I was on the front lines demanding accountability for Iran Contra.

I was on the front lines demanding that RQ terror be defunded and that those responsible be arrested, thrown out of office, or whatever.

I have been arrested at the School of the Americas.

I have stayed late nights calling voters to ask them to contact our representative and ask him to vote against contra funding.

You are trying to justify Kerry's vote in favor of IWR by invoking conspiracy theories, and suggesting that the Kerry-hero saved democracy by tricking the GOP.

That, sir, is silly.

Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. When he came home, he protested against it.

Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in 1991. In 2002 he first indicated his opposition to the IWR, and then later voted for it.

Kerry investigated Iran Contra, but Kerry supports "plan Colombia", while at the same time co-sponsoring legislation to close the school fo the Americas.

In short, Kerry is human. Humans make mistakes, get scared, get fooled, and get overwhelmed by the rush of events.

I think that, with respect to PATRIOT and IWR, kerry made mistakes, got fooled, got caught up, maybe got scared.

You think Kerry is somehow a master strategist who foresaw that Iraq would be the perfect "honey trap" for the GOP.

I think you're being foolish, attempting to paint your candidate as a genius saint.

[Old and In the Way]

91. Well, to each his own opinions.

I really don't care what you did, I could say I led the charge up Hamburger Hill and would you be able refute that? Your "frontline" past is non-operative and not pertinent to the point at hand. And you haven't answered my questions about past Republican government conspiracies which, oddly enough, Kerry helped expose to this nation.

You haven't disproven a thing I stated, but since you are willing to discount everything in Kerry's past that points aware from being "scared", I guess you will continue to use the IWR as a basis to smear his character....lucky for us, most thinking Democrats will disregard your disingenuous argument.

Have a good one Mr. Red.

[regnaD kciN]

44. They did WHAT...?????

So the D's did the next best thing....they qualified the shit out of the resolution and handed George the rope in which to hang himself.

Nonsense. They qualified nothing out of the resolution. They didn't require a multilateral force, they didn't require U.N. approval, they didn't even require Bush come back to Congress. All they did was to make him send them a note with 48 hours of invading, notifying them that, in his sole opinion, all peaceful solutions had failed. Some qualification.

:grr:

[DannyRed]

45. Well said, JD

Be warned, however, failure to recognize the genius strategy of the Kerry Superhero, who saved democracy by voting in favor of the IWR....means that you are, in fact, a Republican, a mindless dupe, and a slave to the dominant paradigm.

How do I know this?

Old and in the way told me so.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

10. It can also be laid at the feet of the "System"

"It" being the wrongness of the absurd invasion.

The system allowed such a military might to be used in the wrong fashion that it was. The system is at fault for allowing too many damned republicans to have been in position to condone the invasion that took place.

Changing the system is what we must do. It is why Dean has such a large following. If the system were changed to the degeree that Dean is fighting for, the Iraq invasion would never have taken place. And were Kerry the President, it wouldn't have.

[DannyRed]

14. NO.

The "system" is a cheap scapegoat. A nebulous deus ex machina, an excuse.

The "System" is made up of Senators, Congressmen, lobbyists, and political power brokers.


Senators and Congressmen VOTE. Their VOTES are tallied, and their arguments and statements are recorded and remembered.

Kerry VOTED in favor of giving Bush the right, BEFOREHAND, of declaring war WHENEVER HE WANTED TO.

Carte Blanche.

Blank Check.

Byrd, Kennedy, Leahy, Jeffords, Chaffee (a REPUBLICAN) voted AGAINST.

Stop with the mealy mouthed excuses.

Move on.

[BeFree]

17. The system is no 'cheap scapegoat'

It is what runs this country. We may not play much of a part in it, but that doesn't mean its not screwing us.

If the military weren't run the way the system wants it, the military would be nothing more than a militia -- a militia incapable of invading Iraq. No system- no military- no invasion. Wouldn't matter if every damn congressmen wanted a war, if there is no military, there is no war!

That's what I think Dean's ultimate goal is-- change the system. Kerry? I think he's coming around to that view.

[DjTj]

11. Do people honestly think a no vote would have kept us out of Iraq?

...The centrist Democrats that voted Yes all say they would have voted for Biden-Lugar, and that certainly would not have stopped Bush from going in.

Clinton didn't even get approval before bombing Kosovo.

I respect Kucinich for being staunchly against the war, but it's clear that if Dean or Clark were in Congress at the time, they could not have stopped the invasion either. If you want to use a resolution as leverage, you risk the executive taking that leverage and launching a war.

Somebody please blame Bush. Not the CIA. Not the Democrats in Congress. PLEASE BLAME BUSH!

[DannyRed]

16. Excuse me?

Is anyone here NOT blaming Bush?

Good, got it.

The POINT is that the resolution as passed satisfied the war powers act, and gave Congressional approval to the president to declare war...whenever (and wherever) he wanted.

WITHOUT that congressional approval, Bush could NOT have constitutionally defended his declaration of war, and would have been FORCED to ask again, and again for that power. He would have been FORCED to go before Congress and justify every detail of the Action.

Those who voted YES....GAVE UP that right to accountability, GAVE AWAY their power to control the executive branch's power to wage war, and GAVE IN to political pressure in as crass and disgusting an example of political calculation and insider gaming as you will EVER SEE.

[DjTj]

99. If what Clinton did with Kosovo...

...satisfied the War Powers Act, then Biden-Lugar certainly would have satisfied it also.

There was no practical course of action the Democrats could have taken to keep us out of Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Bush is the one who turned this into a mid-term crisis in 2002

Sure the Dems could have voted against IWR en masse. And every single thing bad that happened in Iraq would have been laid at the Dems feet for not supporting the troops. Fuck that! This is Bush's tar baby now. Just the way it should be. Bush lied to congress, the American people, and the world. And anyone with any common sense can see it is the fault of Bush who gave the order to invade. May he burn in hell.

Don

[oasis]

15. It was with so much bravado that Chimpy said "show your cards"

at the staged press conference just before the war. He was asked if he would let the 15 member UN Security Council vote on a second resolution before the invasion. "Let's see the whip count" he said enthusiastically. After it was clear that they would fall short of votes, he ordered U.S. Ambassador Negroponte to withdraw the resolution.

What a piece of work.

[LiberalBushFan]

18. If Kerry wanted to be pro-war in a politically expedient way,

he could have voted "No," and said that he is for intervention but doesn't have confidence in Bush to handle it properly. Then he would be PERFECTLY set up for the present day and for the election against Bush. He didn't do this because he's cowardly and has no foresight. Edwards could have done the same thing, but he has even less foresight.

[BeFree]

21. Had he voted NO...

...he would have never heard the end of it come this election season.

"Kerry...soft on defense"
And with that message drubbed into the peoples head, he would look soft on defense. Now while I prefer a president who would be so soft on defense that the budget for it would be more like $100Bn, someone like that would have a real hard time getting elected in this country. The system wouldn't allow it.

No, Kerry's vote was the politically correct stance to take. Vote yes, hand * some rope, and let him hang himself. Most Americans will see it that way.

[Iverson]

50. lame rationalization

"Had he voted NO...he would have never heard the end of it come this election season."

This particular argument states that an admittedly right action cannot be undertaken because of what X will say.

"Most Americans will see it that way."

bandwagon: It must be right because a majority (or a perceived majority) thinks it's right.

Tra la la. It's only preventive invasion, life and death. The really important thing here is the political fears of those who knowingly do the wrong thing.

[BeFree]

69. It's politics

Leaving aside the moral issues for a second, and looking at this from a purely political viewpoint, deciding how to vote on the IWR was a tortous decision. From a purely political view, it was a lose/lose proposition. Can we agree on that?

Looking at it from a strictly moral side, one can see that any support given to such a war machine as the US has built, and now used, is immoral. If there had been no standing army in the first place, no invasion would have taken place. That, is the root, the foundation, the crux of the whole sorted mess.

I look forward to the day when America does not have the possibility, nor the perceived need, for invasion forces. Then, it won't matter who the president is, he or she won't be able to invade anything. That would be the morally correct, everlasting stance.

[IrateCitizen]

70. If you truly want that future, then stop justifying the status quo.

The only way you can work toward the kind of future you claim to want is if you embrace it fully. This involves looking at everything through a moral lens.

To instead attempt to justify as big of a moral issue as engaging in imperialist aggression as "just politics", you are only assuring that the future you say you want does not come about.

[BeFree]

72. Not justifying anything

I just have the capability of dividing the issue into it's component parts and examining them individually. I will be free to do so, no matter what you might say.

Emotional reactions to this situation are one thing. The science of how it evolved is another. Good science requires an emotional detachment.

I'll say it again: I wish we never had a military large enough to invade anything. I will not, and never have, supported such a monster.

[IrateCitizen]

74. Hey, you're free to do what you want

Just as I'm free to disagree with you, as I have on this thread.

Emotional reactions to this situation are one thing. The science of how it evolved is another. Good science requires an emotional detachment.

I'm certain the physicists who helped design the atomic bomb believed this. However, it became apparent to many of them afterwards that proper application of good science requires moral involvement, not detachment. It is that analytical detachment (or perhaps alternately termed the human arrogance of reason) that has gotten us into many predicaments over the years. Morality and scientific analysis are not separate from one another. In fact, in order to avoid the problems so plaguing humanity, I would argue that they must be in concert with one another.

I'll say it again: I wish we never had a military large enough to invade anything. I will not, and never have, supported such a monster.

You can say it as many times as you want, and it's not that I don't believe you really feel that way. All I am going to continue to point out is that your initial post was an attempt to justify the rightness of voting for the IWR, with your "case closed" at the end, and your assertion that now "everything is working out according to plan".

[BeFree]

80. Not justification

I am not trying to justify the war. I am trying to open up the discussion as to how politics played a role in the lead up to the war, at least from the Dem side.

The simple fact remains that the vote was a decision to POSSIBLY use force on Saddam Hussein. The final decision was *'s alone. I'm sure there are misgivings - across the board - to giving that ultimate decision to *, but that's politics. Time to get over it and move on.

Bring the troops home. Now.

[Iverson]

89. I know.

I know that you are not trying to justify the war.

However, your effort to compartmentalize facets of the whole question is misguided because it effectively decontextualizes the question. It is perhaps scientific in the impulse to isolate dependent variables, but unscientific in removing the question from the situation to which it applies.

That situation, literally life and death, is not something to get over the same way that one would get over an ordinary political calculation like a spending bill. Because it was (and is) life-and-death, it deserves a special attention and a greater weight.

For some, that weight is too much.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Wrong.

But your knee jerk thinking plays pretty well to what Karl Rove wants you to say on this issue. Your playing checkers when the game is chess. See my post above.

[Iverson]

52. lame rationalization, part II

appeal to ridicule, prejudice: "But your knee jerk thinking plays pretty well to what Karl Rove wants you to say on this issue."

Invoking a despised symbol at the same time as the opponent's argument causes them to be causally linked, since they were mentioned so close together.

"Your(sic) playing checkers when the game is chess."

non-sequitur metaphor

"See my post above."
OK, let's look.

"Republicans controlled both Houses. where is their outrage at being lied to? ... Why aren't the Republican voters holding their Party responsible for the actions of this administration?"

bizarre analogy: If one party deserves criticism for an admittedly wrong action, a different party, by virtue of being different, can take that same admittedly wrong action and not deserve criticism.

[IrateCitizen]

55. And I guess that those 500+ dead service members are pawns?

Your playing checkers when the game is chess.

This kind of rationalization about human life just plain makes me sick. :puke:

[rhite5]

39. Senate Democrats

Ever since Ashcroft was confirmed and not one Democrat (even Kennedy) was willing to filibuster to stop it (and all the Senators knew what the man was like -- they had served with him in the Senate), --- well, ever since then I have made excuses for Senate Democrats ... The same excuses being mentioned here:

• It's the SYSTEM of Senate collegiality or _______ (you fill in the blank).

• They knew Ashcroft was bad news but they wanted to give the Repugs "enough rope to hang themselves."

In the case of passing the original P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (AFTER Kucinich had managed to rally 67 Congresspeople to vote against it and Sen. Feingold had spoken at great length in the Senate against it AND they had not had a chance to read the Act themselves) and all but Feingold voted YEA:

• They were too scared by the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper and 9/11 itself to dare do anything that might incur the wrath of whoever was attacking.

In the case of giving GWB a blank check to invade Iraq (when WE at DU and everyone else who followed the Ritter reports on the internet all knew there were NO WMD and there was no evidence of Iraq involvement in 9/11):

• They did not know that Bush was lying because they don't have time to read the foreign press and their staff people don't follow the internet.

• They are getting old and inattentive and did not understand the powers they were giving to Bush and thought requiring UN approval would solve the problem.

Guess what? I am long since done with making excuses.

• If these Democrats are innocent because they are incompetent ..., Well, that is one thing. They ought to be replaced. Not promoted to the presidency.

• If they sit on important committees and still do these things .... maybe, just maybe, something else is at work here.

It ain't pretty. We know damn well they have access to the information that we ordinary citizens can get on the internet.

It is time to stop making excuses for them!

[DannyRed]

41. Indeed...

well said.

It is time to stop making excuses for the inexcusable.

If Kerry's vote was the result of being lied to or tricked, well, that is one thing.

But if Kerry's vote is a result of some deep political calculation, that is inexcusable.

If Kerry was lied to, then he can defend himself by attacking the liars.

If he was tricked, well...we weren't and we do not have the access to info that he does...that is not dastardly, but it does not speak well of his qualifications.

If he was making a calculation, then he needs to be pout on his ear.

[regnaD kciN]

47. AMEN! And another point about Kerry...

What has disturbed me as much as his initial IWR vote have been his twists and turns to get on both sides of the issue.

First, claiming that the vote was not to "give Bush a blank check" when anyone who could read could clearly see that this was precisely what the IWR did.

Then claiming a bunch of non-existent qualifiers in the IWR that would give him further power to stop a rush toward war, making it seem that he was voting for a completely different proposal than the real one he cast his "Aye" for.

Then claiming that he was misled by Bush and his cronies, and that promises had been made that the IWR would not lead to automatic war, making himself the "seduced innocent."

Then, when Saddam Hussein was captured little more than a week later, forgetting his "seduced and abandoned" explanation to take credit for enabling our success there by his vote.

Then, once the "faulty intelligence" report came out and the collective back-slapping over Saddam's capture ancient history, going right back to his "I was fooled" argument.

In short, Kerry strikes me as another gutless politician who, instead of standing up for his principles, is all-too-ready to jettison them when "conventional wisdom" dictates otherwise, confident that he can "explain away" his actions to the faithful...and, if one explanation doesn't wash, keep on trying new ones until he finds one that clicks.

Why is this important? Because, unless November witnesses not only a miracle but a whole series of them, a future President Kerry will take office with a Congress still as tilted to the Republicans as now if not more so, and lots of big media eager to spin the Republican line as "conventional wisdom." It is doubtful that any incoming Democratic president will be able to do much to advance his agenda, at least for the first two years of his term. The best we can hope for is a successful defensive effort, stopping any further depradations by the GOP that is certainly not going to let anything that will help a "liberal Democrat" get past them.

Given this sobering possibility, who do you want in the Oval Office: a man with strong principles who will do battle for them and not given an inch, or one who will decide to be "pragmatic" and meet the Republicans half-way in their attempts to futher their agenda, figuring he can always "explain" his cave-ins to his faithful?

I foresee, should Kerry become president, that we will reach 2008 with nothing in the way of futher progressive achievement, more than a little of what is on the Republican "wish list" in place in the spirit of "bipartisan compromise," and every bit of blame for every failing firmly planted on the "liberal Democrat in the White House," making that year's election a cakewalk for Jebbie.

:-(

[redqueen]

90. "It is time to stop making excuses for them!"

Long past, I'd say.

Great post. :)

[Egnever]

43. Must be frustrating to be so consistently wrong!

The train wreck is ongoing daily in Iraq and the dems you try to excuse in some fantasy scenario of saving democracy are largely responsible for assuring the train wreck occurred

[DannyRed]

46. Thanks.

It is nice to know that others share my insanity, and that others, too, are (apparently) closet republican wannabes who do not recognize the incredibly devious trap laid for the republicans by the likes of Kerry and Edwards....who trapped the GOP by...giving them what they wanted!!!

Make no mistake, I have some respect for Kerry, and will vote for him if it comes to that in the General Election....but until that time I will not support him, excuse him, give him any money, or allow his supporters to whitewash his deeds.

[regnaD kciN]

48. I don't think Kerry supporters are "closet Republican wannabes"...

but I do think they are "Waist Deep in De Nile"...

;-)

[MadHound]

49. A different viewpoint on this

First off, this decision to vote yes on the IWR wasn't made in a vacumn. Those who voted on it could have and should have been well informed on the subject. There was Scott Ritter and his team stating that there were no WMD and possibly hadn't been any since '91. There was a 1998 CIA report stating there were no WMDs. Also an IAEA report stating no nuclear programs. Every suspicious precursor to WMDs was being debunked almost immediately(such as those aluminum tubes). Hans Blix hadn't found a damn thing. Saddam and the Iraqis WERE cooperating. The matter was well in hand.

Also you had millions of people across the country getting in touch with their represenatives and telling them what they thought. And that was that they didn't want to go to war. By the margin of 280 to 1 people were telling their reps to vote no on the IWR. Large majorities in the polls were reflecting this sentiment. By margins in the sixtieth and seventieth percintile people were polling that they didn't want a unilateral, pre-emptive war, and that we should let the inspectors finish their job.

And yet our Congressmen and Senators didn't do the job they are vote into office to do, ie represent us. Despite all of the calls, emails and polls, despite worldwide protests, the majority of Senators and Congressmen didn't do their job, which is represent us. Instead they took the politically expiedient route and voted for it. Perhaps they didn't want to appear weak in an election year, perhaps they didn't wish to hand ammunition to their rivals, but none of that excuses the fact that THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB, which is to represent the majority views of their constituents!

And this failure has cost us both in terms of money and lifes. It has also meant the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis along with the complete decimation of that country.

I'm sorry, but each and every Congressman and Senator who voted for the IWR must be held accountable. They were one of the last lines of defense in holding the Bush war machine in check, and yet they failed. They were supposed to represent their constituents in this matter, and yet they failed. You cannot say they were fooled, for this is disproved by the ones who voted against the IWR. You cannot say that they voted for the IWR because they feared a backlash, because the vast majority of Americans were not wanting to go into a pre-emptive unilateral war.

No, all you can say about these pro IWR reps is that they failed to do their job, failed to represent their constituency, and that this failure has cost us and the world dearly. They have blood on their hands and they should be held accountable.

[quaker bill]

51. Agreed, but here is the problem

We are nominating a candidate who is hanging from the same proverbial rope.

[MidwestMomma]

101. There in lies the rub

Did you see the post earlier today that had the link to the Newsday article by Scott Ritter? Ritter says basically the same thing.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vprit093662615feb09,0,359814.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

From the article:

"President Bush should rightly be held accountable for what increasingly appears to be deliberately misleading statements made by him and members of his administration regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. If such deception took place, then Bush no longer deserves the trust and confidence of the American people.

But John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace."

[dusty64]

53. Too bad so many

soldiers and innocent civilians have had to be killed or maimed to make our cabal look as evil and inept as we've always known them to be. After SO many lies and stabs in the back, when will the opposition party realize they've be seriously screwed?

[IrateCitizen]

54. I'm certain that this strategizing is a consolation...

... to the 500+ US service members who have died in Iraq. I'm certain that it's consolation to the thousands of more who have been injured -- some losing limbs. I'm certain that this is all consolation to the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives, and their surviving family members.

To be quite honest, this whole "case" reeks of pure cowardice. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Real courage comes from speaking out to stop the train wreck before it starts.

Frankly, I think your "case" absolutely sucks. :argh:

[HFishbine]

56. Case not close. That rope is still being played out

and it is woven from the lives of American soldiers and the grief of their families. But hey, that's politics, right?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

58. A lot of us don't want to vote for a politician who hedged his bets.

Democrats who voted for IWR chose to hedge their bets. If WMD had been found in Iraq, they would have been crowing about it. Those who voted against the IWR (or publicly opposed it), took all the risk. They are the ones who were either noble enough to put their political careers on the line to stand up for what they believed in; or were smart enough to assess the intelligence, read the reports, and conclude that Iraq did not have WMD and that it therefore wasn't really a risk at all.

In either case, that's the type of person I want leading the country. Why reward the type of person who hedges his bets? Why not reward the ones who took the gamble and turned out to be right? I'm more pragmatic than idealistic, and I don't blame politicians for sometimes putting political concerns first. But the IWR was not the time to do it. That was the line. That was the point where those in Congress should have said, "Many times I've given up the battle in order to win the war. This is the war; there's no sacrificing anymore. I must do what is right."

[bigtree]

96. Some may have hedged their bets. Not John Kerry.

You cannot provide proof of that.

Most here feel that they can disregard his statements and claim that he voted for war. That is dishonest.

You have to come to the position that he was lying about his rational for the vote in the extensive, detailed statements he made on the Senate floor before the vote. http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

To say that he voted for war you will have to say he was lying when he expressed saddness and outrage at Bush's invasion on the eve of the deployment:

"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11."

Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo ...


Or this:

CNN American Morning Transcript
January 27, 2004 Tuesday 7:07 AM Eastern Time
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo ...

HEMMER: Senator, the war continues to be a big hot-button issue here in New Hampshire, especially between you and Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. You voted against the first Gulf War. You voted in favor of the past war in Iraq. Howard Dean says your logic is backwards. He told Wolf Blitzer yesterday-and I'll quote him now-“Perhaps my foreign policy experience and judgment might be better in the White House than his”-meaning you-“since he seemed to have voted wrong on both wars.”

Your response to that is what, Senator?

KERRY:

But, look, there is a very direct answer to both of those questions. I said we had to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I said his invasion would not stand. I knew we had to use force ultimately, or might have to use force ultimately. I simply thought, given my experience in Vietnam and given Colin Powell, who was joint chiefs of staffs, reservations and other people, we ought to take another month or two to build the support in our country. And I though it was worth building that support, because when you go to war, you want to make sure the American people are really supportive if things go badly.

Secondly, with respect to this, nobody voted precisely for a war. They voted for a process. They voted to go to the U.N. They voted to build an international coalition that was legitimate, voted to have inspections exhausted, and voted to go to war as a last resort, which is what the president promised us. The president broke every single one of those promises, not to mention misled America with respect to the intelligence, which we now all know.

I stood up for the security and the common sense with respect to the soldiers who fight wars. I've been one of those soldiers. I know what it means when you lose the consent and legitimacy of the American people in a war. And as a president, I think there is a special test as to when you send young American men and women off to fight and die. I know that test, and as president, I will live up to the highest standard with respect to that.

[ScreamingMeemie]

63. At what price? Half a thousand dead soldiers so far doesn't seem

like a great bet to me. I am anybody but Bush but I am sorely disappointed that any one of our candidates would back such a horrific venture.

[corporatewhore]

75. first we are rationalize slighting gays of our civil rights now we are

rationalizeing the deaths of thoousands of iraqis and 500 soliders and american colonialism what does that say about the dem party

[BeFree]

82. Confusing the issue

There are two issues here.

One: the vote, up or down, on giving the president the ability to protect America's interests.

Two: the use of that decision to actually go to war, or to use diplomacy accompanied by the THREAT of using force to protect America's interests.

I did not make any of this up. It is history.

I am not trying to rationalize the war. Just the vote that gave * the opportunity to do so. Frankly, had I the means to have voted on IWR, I would have voted NO. But I can see the why of some Dems voting yes. It is not a rationalization of the war itself, there is none for that.

Bring the troops home. Now.

[redqueen]

88. "on giving the president the ability to protect America's interests"

Yep, it's hopeless.

:puke:

[BeFree]

93. America's interest's

Oil is the main interest that concerns America. It is a fact. Not one that I made up or helped design. A fact.

Can anyone live the American dream without oil?

[Forkboy]

78. Case closed is right

thanks for making it so crystal claer that innocent lives weren't a factor in their voting.

Too bad it's taken 20,000+ innocent deaths for the Dems to let Bush "hang himself".

:puke:

[BeFree]

81. 20,000+ innocents

I mourn for them. It is a heavy price to pay.

But think back to WW2. How many innocents were killed before the US finally began to fight? Do you think that part of the equation was left out of the politics of which way to vote on IWR? It was damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The final, ultimate decision to murder the innocents in Iraq, was up to one man, and one man alone. Spreading the blame is fine. Problem is, when ya point fingers in a lot of different directions, you end up pointing at yourself, sometimes.

Bring the troops home. Now.

[Forkboy]

85. It's laughable (or insulting) to compare this mess in Iraq to WW2

If you're going to be damned either way then you have nothing to lose by standing up for whats right.Kerry was looking for a way NOT to be damned by this vote.

[BeFree]

86. No comparisons made

All I did was relate how defense is looked at from an historical context.

Kerry IS looking for a way to not be damned by his vote. Until I read up on his comments since, I always had a serious doubt about why he did vote yes. Considering what I now know, and what I thought back then, leads me to the conclusion that Kerry should not be damned for his vote. Reminded of it? Sure. But not damned. * is the one to damn for what happened.

[Forkboy]

87. First you try to justify this vote

then claim you're not justifying it.

Then you compare this to WW2 and then claim no comparisons made.

Sorry,but you're all over the place on this.You should sort it out in your head before claiming "case closed" to the rest of us.

Peace

[BeFree]

92. Fair nd balanced...

....I am not trying to justify the vote. I am just laying out the course of action that led to certain senators voting the way they thought they had to vote, in order to accomplish their personally, politically correct thing. No judgment, just a possible explanation, an explanation that no one on this thread has yet been able to get me too see the wrongness thereof.

Juxtaposed against the knee-jerk condemnation of a whole past, present and future political career- due to one isolated yay or nay vote- comes my argument that taken in the broader context, such a condemnation is not fair and balanced. That is my argument.

I have been accused of trying to justify the war itself. I think I have made clear that such accusations are unfair.

Using the comparison of pre-war WW2 to to establish an historical relation to the consideration of defense issues is in no way a comparison of the two actions taken in their whole forms. To put words in my mouth that I did not say is unfair.

Bring the troops home. Now.

[rhite5]

97. We know you are not trying to justify the war itself

But we are talking about an extremely important vote, not just any vote. We are talking about a man who possessed at least as much information as we did
• about the absense of WMDs,
• about the absense of any evidence that Saddam had a connection to 9/11,
• about the agenda of PNAC and the character of the people who wanted to go to war.

He had already seen plenty of evidence that Bush's word could not be trusted.

He knew better than we did about the Oil Industry's goals in the Middle East.

Senators do not operate in a vaccuum. Especially a senator who had been around as long as Kerry had been. I am sure he knew about what went on in Cheney's private secret Energy Plan meetings, for instance.

To claim that Kerry was duped makes him sound as if he is an incompetent man. If so, he should not become president, and probably could never beat Bush in November anyway.

All his after-the-fact pretty speeches do not change a thing.

[BeFree]

98. From the beginning when IWR was passed

I felt that the no votes were the correct votes. But I realized that there were other, political decisions, that weighed heavily in the decision. This thread was an attempt to put the political side up to the light, as it were, to see what truths may be found.

Kerry does, or at least should, know a hell of a lot more than we do about 'things'. So, taking that into consideration, maybe Kerry has a 'bigger picture' than we? Maybe Kerry has figured a different angle of attack rather than a head on attack, and he is gonna side slip a mortal blow?
I.e. --rope enough to hang by.

Also, given that Kerry knew he would be running in this election, and sensing that in October of 04, he might be slammed with being soft on defense, his vote on IWR would fend off that crucial blow?

Like I've said, politics played a huge part in a yes vote for IWR. We do not know just how much, we never will. I will say this: I firmly believe that if Kerry were the president, IWR would have never been an issue.

[cajun4clark]

94. Edwards voted against all 4 proposed IWR amendments

and Kerry voted against 2 of 4. So not only did they vote for the IWR, they opposed amendments proposed by other Democrats to restrict the language of the resolution. Pitiful. Makes me wonder what these guys would do/not do to get reelected president.

[bigtree]

95. Yours is a dubious argument without facts and proof that Kerry opposed

2 of 4 amandments.