I accept Senator Kerry’s explanation of his vote for the IWR

[MurikanDemocrat]

I have felt the same way all along. Kerry said the vote for the IWR was a vote for a PROCESS. That PROCESS included using the UN and the inspection process and building a coalition of allies to stand together against Saddam. The IWR provided that war was the absolute last resort. Kerry also pointed out that Bush didn’t need the IWR to go to war. Let me say that again, Bush didn’t need the IWR to go to war.

It was Bush who ran roughshod over the inspections process. It was Bush who ran roughshod over the UN. It was Bush who ran roughshod over our allies, figuratively thumbed his nose at them, and pissed the rest of the world. It was Bush who rushed to war. It was Bush who never had any intention of doing anything BUT rushing straight to war.

The responsibility for the Iraq war rests squarely with Bush and his merry band of neocon’s, whose singular purpose was to enrich themselves and their ilk by exploiting Iraqi oil, and not out of regard for the people of Iraq as they would have people believe.

None of the Democrats who voted for the IWR started this war. Bush did. Senator Kerry did not start this war. Bush did. Senator Kerry would NOT have started this war. But Bush did.

It’s time to quit letting Bush off the hook for this and assigning it to Kerry. The buck stops with the bastard sitting in the White House. Not with those who gave Bush an outline to follow that Bush refused to consider, or those who had no real control over what Bush had already decided to do, with or without the IWR anyway.

[aquart]

1. He absolutely needed it. He needed the Senate's consent.

Because the people weren't buying it.

Has Bush ever asked for a permission he didn't absolutely need?

It may have been only a PR need, but YES, he needed it.

[WiseMen]

17. Not AT all. Tell me last time a President asked Congress to Declare War

[robcon]

2. I think Kerry was exposed as a fool by the IWR.

He voted for unconditional war. Then he voted not to fund the war he approved. He's an ass, IMO.

[Rowsdower]

4. takes both sides

he tries to be on both sides of the issue so that he can't be held accountable. people want a guy who will state what he believes, then stand by it. Kerry is just too inconsistent.

[goobergunch]

3. Actually, Bush* did need the IWR to go to war under War Powers

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution reads:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

Section 3(c)(1) of the Iraq Resolution reads:

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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114:

Bush* would have had to have pulled out of Iraq pretty quickly if it weren't for the IWR....

[MurikanDemocrat]

11. There's no way they could have pulled out at that point anyway.

[goobergunch]

13. Exactly

Bush* needed IWR to authorize the use of force, because he knew U.S. forces would have been in Iraq far longer than the War Powers-mandated 90 days.

[MurikanDemocrat]

14. You misunderstood me

I'm still saying he would have STARTED the war WITHOUT the IWR.

And I don't fully sign on that he would require further authorization to stay once he got there either.

[Egnever]

5. I dont buy it for a second and I think Denis ripped the mask off

That bullshit tonight in the debate.

I voted for it because he would have gone anyway .... what a crock!

Kerry disgusts me.

[MurikanDemocrat]

7. That's not what he said

[cavebat2000]

10. I agree

Thank you

[bluestateguy]

6. Here will be is problem:

I accept his explanation too, but the problem is that clearly explaining his IWR stance takes several paragraphs before it becomes coherent to the recipient. Unfortunately, his position does not soundbite very well (the same could be said with regard to many Democratic issue positions). His position can simply be misreprsented as "he voted for the war", and that will be all people want to hear and be able to digest. Dean's position, Bush's position and Lieberman's position soundbite well. I'm afraid Kerry's position require's some cutting through the weeds to get to the bottom line. Many Americans are not adult enough to do that.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. Most Americans do not give a hoot about the IWR

nor do they hold Kerry responsible for the war. The majority of Americans correctly hold Bush responsible for the war. It's mainly GD Primary that mischaracterizes Kerry's position as "a vote for war".

[GodHelpUsAll2]

15. Then who were those people

Who took to the steets to protest it? I seem to recall there were millions of them.

[goobergunch]

16. I thought we were just a focus group!

;)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

18. A very large focus group

I can't believe statements are made that no one cares about the IRW. Those protests did happen right? I didn't just dream it all did I?

[goobergunch]

19. Yep, we're still out here

A lot of us have left this board, but we're still here. :hi:

Back when I first joined DU, there was a large statement on the front expressing opposition to the war. DU's come a long way from then - and it's not a way I necessarily like.

[Forkboy]

20. You cant be for what's right and win elections

And we're seeing the choice many are picking between the two.

[lurk_no_more]

23. I protested the war and bush for starting it

and as far as I could see that's what everyone else was protesting too, if they were there, I saw no protests for the IWR or it's supporters, only against bush.

Everyone I've talked to has said bush would've gone no matter what and the IWR was only for show to get folks behind him and his war.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[GodHelpUsAll2]

25. So....

"the IWR was only for show to get folks behind him and his war".
So, congress, including JK, willingly participated in deceiving the public.

[Carolina]

22. mischaracterization? oh really ?

People do care and will care because this vote, this story, this inconsistency (despite the spin) is gaining legs in the media. Read the following Kerry and War by Jonathan Schell (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0213-08.htm) and note it is one of just a few on this very issue.
--------------

... the question of Kerry's position on the war. Had our warrior-protester, now in pursuit of the presidency, sacrificed principle for ambition by voting for the Iraq war? Had he by his vote asked American soldiers to die for a mistake? Kerry himself asserts that his vote to enable the war was a vote of conscience. What the rest of us can see, however, is that ever since his vote he has trapped himself in a morass--a little quagmire in its own right--of self-contradictory, equivocating, evasive, incomplete, unconvincing explanations of his stand... Missing in all these responses and others Kerry has given is the answer to a simple, fair, necessary question--the one Kerry answered so memorably in regard to the Vietnam War: Was the war in Iraq a mistake?


Kerry has often said his position has been consistent, and this is true in the sense that he has said the same thing over and over. But it is in part precisely in this rigidity that the problem lies. Kerry voted for the war, he said at the time, because he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed... Disturbingly, he did not address the constitutional problem raised by the fact that, as Ted Kennedy said, "The most solemn responsibility any Congress has is the responsibility ... declare war."

Americans deserve accountability and truth from opposition candidates as well. Someone who is ducking responsibility for his own actions is hardly in a strong position to call someone else to account...

[virtualobserver]

12. several paragraphs plus a bottle of jack daniels.....

to make it coherent.

[cavebat2000]

9. I on the other hand do not

I will never accept his sorry excuse for rolling over in the face of pressure. I disagree with you and I vote.

[BeFree]

21. Very simple

Rove can not say that JK voted to keep Saddam in power.

Rove can not say that JK is against fighting the war on terrorism.

Several of Rove's moves are lost. In purely political terms, JK's votes on several issues was very, very smart.

It's gonna take a vey smart politician to turn America around. I think we found one.

[Carolina]

24. yes but Rove

CAN say that JK voted in support of the pResident ergo why is he running against him ...

CAN say that JK voted for the pResident's war on terrorism but then undercut that war by not voting for the $87 bil ...

In short, Rove can spin anything to his and * advantage.

But it would have been nice, to say the least, if Kerry, based on his own war experience and the expressed wishes of his MA constituents, had been as morally clear in 2002 as he was about Vietnam and if he had voted on principle and not politics.

This vote was just plain bad. There is no getting around it for the millions of us who knew so then because we took the time to read and we could see through the Bush, Cheney, Powell axis of lies.