All the excuses for the Dems' Iraq vote

[ProSense]

The Democrats backed down. That's what happened.

Webb says he worked hard, it was hard work but he voted for it.

Murtha says the money was going to run out next week, which essentially means three presidential candidates, Dodd, Obama and Clinton voted to cut off funds for the troops on the ground.

No excuses here and here.

[Egnever]

1. No offense but your link to Kerry

I find kind of Ironic after all his excuses for his vote that helped start all this crap.

[ProSense]

2. Bullshit!

Show me one excuse. He said he was wrong to Bush and maintains that he never voted to allow Bush to illegally invade Iraq.

[ProSense]

3. In his own words

KERRY: Well, they are, in fact, the lessons that many of us tried to apply, Chris, in the vote on the original resolution giving the President the authority. I mean, if you go back and read what I said then and others said it, I made it very clear that the President had to keep his word. If he was going to go to war, it had to be with other countries, with allies. Number two, it had to be as a matter of last resort. And number three, you had to do the planning necessary and have the forces committed necessary to make sure that you had a victory. On each of those counts – and you also had to exhaust the remedies that were available to you, i.e. the United Nations inspections, which they didn’t do. So on every count, they rushed to war without our allies, they rushed to war without the exhaustion of the remedies available to us, they rushed to war without the planning. On every front of the lessons of Vietnam, they broke the rules, and they’ve inherited their problem of this generation as a result. It’s extraordinary to me, and what many of us felt was was betrayed by that series of decisions that literally turned their back on the past, on history, and now they’re repeating it.

link (video)

[Egnever]

4. Those arent excuses?

LOL

[ProSense]

5. Plainly? No!

There is a difference between an excuse and a list of criteria.

[Egnever]

6. LOL

yes cause the chimp could be trusted. Despite the fact that at the time of that vote the ships were allready allready on their way and the prestaging had allready begun. There was absulutely nothing to suggest that any of kerry's dream list was going to happen at the time and wow immagine this none of it did. Pretending after the fact that he actually believed it would defies belief.

heres more of kerry's bs at the time

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm


In a speech on the Senate floor immediately prior to the October vote, Senator Kerry categorically stated that Saddam Hussein was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons.” However, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that Iraq had had an active nuclear program for at least eight to ten years prior to the U.S. invasion. Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in 1998 and subsequently that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled.

To justify his claims of an Iraqi nuclear threat, Senator Kerry claimed that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.” The reality, of course, was that much of the U.S. intelligence community was highly skeptical of claims that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials.

Indeed, despite unfettered access by IAEA inspectors to possible Iraqi nuclear facilities between this past November and March and exhaustive searching by U.S. occupation forces since then, no trace has been found of the ongoing Iraqi nuclear program that Senator Kerry claimed existed last fall.

In addition, Senator Kerry stated unequivocally that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” He even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” He did not try to explain how this could be possible, given the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990.

[ProSense]

7. What the hell is that?

Where does it say he approves attacking Iraq?

[karynnj]

9. This article is not an accurate portrayal of Kerry's IWR speech

which is in the Senate record. Note that there are no substanitive quotes - just sentence fragments. When I see this done for anyone, it makes me suspicious.

Here - on the chemical/biological weapons, he was quoting from a Kerry paragraph where he admitted that in 1990, they found after the war that Saddam had far more than was thought he did before the Gulf War. Kerry was one of the most adament opponents of that war.

The case Kerry made was NOT that Saddam had biological or chemical weapons or that he "categorically stated" that either he was definately seeking or had weapons. He was reporting the intelligence given to him. Kerry was making the case that you can't RULE OUT that he has weapons. Kerry then advocated for getting the inspectors in.

It seems that what Kerry was saying was that, he and other critics had moved Bush from unilateral war to working with Congress, going to the UN and at least trying to get inspections. (which they hadn't had for 4 years and which many said Saddam wouldn't allow.) It may have been shown hubris to think he and others could change Bush's direction, but changing his direction was the only way to avoid war.

As it was, Saddam DID agree to the inspections and the truth about WMD were minimized. At that point, any other President would have taken this as a victory - which it would have been. Bush could even have then blamed Clinton for the devastation due to the sanctions. Instead, having got to a position that seemed unthinkable in October 2002, Bush still pushed to invade. Kerry spoke out at this point. It is interesting to me the author ignores that.

The author tries to make the case that Kerry lied about the intelligence - but similar statements were made by people like Feingold who wisely witheld his vote for the IWR as he made the same case to get the inspectors in. The author uses Kerry's intelligence, knowledge and the fact that he is hard working against him - to say that he couldn't have believed the case and it was because he was militaristic - an adjective I never associated with Kerry.

You also ignore his negative and pretty biased characterization of Howard Dean. It also ignores that though Kerry did have some anti-war people angry with him, many of us saw that he had spoken against the war.








"Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq --seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq . The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq .

The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. "

____________________

Kerry later states:

"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. "

[karynnj]

8. No they aren't

They are serious steps that Bush publicly had committed to. Do you think that Bush would have followed the intended steps if Levin were the bill voted in?

Kerry has explained his vote and he spoke out before the war. His principles in 2002, 2003, until today are the same and they show, that he been President, there would have been no war.

The problem with the vote was that Bush abused it. Kerry has said since 2005, that he was wrong to have given Bush trusted Bush to do what he said he would do with that vote