Why I cannot so easily forgive Kerry or Edwards for their IWR votes

[edzontar]

My thoughts were well expressed during the voting period back in 2002 by one of our most distinguished posters.

I admired this post then, and repost some sections of it now, since it expresses, better than I can--and with many less typos--how I felt at the time, and still feel today.

Of course, since then, we have hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded Americans, and countless (uncounted) Iraqi casualties to add to the outrage.

History is memory, and I dedicate this post to the memory of those who have died in this criminal war.

So here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-b...rum=DCForumID60

"WilliamPitt (10856 posts) Oct-07-02, 07:34 PM (ET)

The Democratic Party has finally lost me

With a few notable exceptions, Democrats in the Senate appear prepared to give George W. Bush everything he wants regarding war with Iraq. No matter that a vast majority of Americans do not want this war, no matter that the case for war has not been made, no matter that the international community repudiates such action, and no matter that this push for war has been put forth by the White House in a cynical attempt to deflect public attention from gross mismanagement of the government, and away from the catastrophes within the business community. Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt surrendered last week, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is preparing to lead GOP mouthpieces like Joe Lieberman in a total capitulation to Bush's plans.

For one, brief, shining moment two weeks ago, it appeared the Democrats would stand up to the incredibly dangerous program put forth by the Bush administration. Al Gore spoke publicly and caustically about Bush's ham-fisted handling of the economy, and the variety of ways war with Iraq will make the world a more dangerous place for America. Senators Byrd and Kennedy likewise excoriated the administration. Daschle stood in the well of the Senate and demanded an apology from Bush, after Bush flatly stated that Democrats did not care about the security of the United States. Byrd and Kennedy have since been hung out to dry, and Daschle has proven himself to be unworthy of the title of leader. His little temper tantrum at the podium is bitter dust in the mouths of every American who hoped that, finally, finally, the Democrats would make a stand.

Because these jellyfish cannot find within themselves the courage to be moral, because the truth is not in them, because they have decided to accept the spoon-fed poison of Karl Rove's Machiavellian disinformation campaign, it might serve any American who reads this to be reminded of the truth, and the stakes, in this matter.

There is no case for war in Iraq. There is no proof whatsoever that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to America or his neighbors. The marvelously absurd Catch-22 we have heard so often is that Hussein is a mortal threat, and yet will be a pushover in battle. There is no proof that Hussein retains any functional aspect of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs that were totally dismantled and destroyed by the UNSCOM weapons inspectors from 1991 through 1998. Repeated attempts by the United Nations to reinsert more inspectors have been spurned by the Bush administration in favor of combat.

(snip)....
I have for my entire life been a Democrat. My parents came of age with the rousing words of John F. Kennedy ringing in their ears, and I was given their passionate liberalism with mother's milk. Mine has never been a starry-eyed liberalism; I voted for Clinton twice, and Gore once, both times without regret. Whichever way my own personal views have tended, I have always been a pragmatist when it comes to elections and politics. Win first, I have always said, and hope that the issues I believe passionately in will find their way into the policy realm. I have been feasting on half a loaf for years, and have never cried for my empty stomach.

That is all finished now. You may now call me a Street Democrat. I am unrepresented by the leadership of the party to which I have always given my loyalty. Accordingly, I have, and will continue, to take my opposition out onto the streets and news stands and bookstore shelves of America. I was in downtown Boston protesting Bush last Friday, I will be in Washington on October 26th for the massive anti-war rally that will be taking place, and I will be out on those streets at every opportunity. My leadership has failed, and I am forced to do their jobs for them. I am not interested in electoral gamesmanship, pragmatism or being a good party man any more. My essential core of ethics have been battered and bruised by the Democratic leadership for years. I have always accepted that half a loaf, and never cried for my empty stomach. No more. Not on this one.

Today, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be a Democrat.

(snip)

Remember one last thing before you trundle into the chamber and sell us all down the river. The Democratic Party was virtually annihilated the last time it made a bad decision about a war. History may well record the coming debacle in Iraq as a Bush war, but I will remember you. I will never forgive, and I will never forget."

[liberalnurse]

1. If we are going to vote in November

for a Democrat....then one will have to get over it........


I'm working on that issue myself......:donut:

[edzontar]

2. It is especially hard for me because I am in PA

Which is going to be a tight race this year.

I guess I don't have any choice, but I am not happy about it.

[liberalnurse]

82. It simply is a miserable position for Democrats.

By having Kerry and Edward we simply condone by association the IWR......The candidates can spin all they want but if they had voted against it we wouldn't need this discussion.


I'm trying to find balance with this miserable issue.......

[DjTj]

89. I don't forgive them; but I REALLY don't forgive Bush...

I certainly hold this against all Democrats that voted for the IWR, and we should never forgive them. They should understand that Bush's rush to war was unequivocally wrong and if as President they do anything resembling preemptive war we should not give them a second term.

In the primaries, I have no problem with people supporting Kucinich or Sharpton or continuing to vote for Dean for this reason. We can also vote against our incumbent Congressional Democrats in the primaries.

However, when Novembmer comes around and I am given a choice between the man who orchestrated the entire buildup to war and a man who voted for a piece of legislation that authorized the use of force, I will vote ABB every time.

We don't have to forgive. I don't have any qualms with voting for someone whom I don't agree with 100%, and the choice is crystal clear when the alternative is Bush.

[Walt Starr]

3. I have to agree, it's a tough pill to swallow

and is also why on March 17th, I will be changing my party affiliation for the first time in my life. On March 17th, I will register as an independent.

This isn't the only thing that totally pisses me off about the Democrats. On top of this insult, there will also be an enforced "First Amendment Zone" in Boston during the convention. this shows me the Democratic Party is not really serious about change.

[edzontar]

4. I will stay in for now, but all bets are off after November.

I will not be taken for granted when the lives of human beings are exchanged in the name of political expediency.

[MoonAndSun]

5. Thanks for the reminder, edzontar.

This does bring back all of the anger the majority of DUers had at the Democrats in Congress during the run up to the Iraq invasion.

I can not forget the feeling of betrayal I felt when those Senators voted to bypass their constitutional duty and give bush* the authority to declare war on Iraq.

And no amount of rationale for why certain Senators voted that way will sway me.

[Mile Hi]

6. I can't vote for Kerry

Because he didn't have the balls to stand up to Bush and vote no on the war.

Why should I believe now that he will "fight" for me. Actions speak louder than words.

Kerry wimped out and now that he co-opted Dean on the anti-war we are suppose to believe he was tricked by Bush(his own words)

If he couldn't tell Bush was telling a lie then he must not be very smart. Another reason not to vote for him.

Kerry plays both sides to keep his political career alive.

He isn't much of a man.

[Ninga]

7. We have a moral obligation to continue

to be against the War.

I am depresed and worried and think each day about those who have died in the senseless, shameful ware.

I will not forget. because I can't.

I think the only thing left to do, is to take to the streets in protest.

[zoeyfong]

95. Right on.

[Demobrat]

8. I will never vote for Kerry.

I swore at the time he voted for the war that he would never get mine, and that will never change. I'm out of the Democratic party as of March 3. I never in a million years thought I would ever say that Nader was right, but Nader was right. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, so from now on I will vote only for people I respect, regardless of party affiliation. And don't even bother to tell me that a third party or write in vote is a vote for Bush. I will not allow Bush to be used as a whip by Bush appeasers. It's still my vote, and I vote no on that Bullshit.

[VelmaD]

15. Go read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1139905

Or any of the numerous other threads about what this administration and other Rethugs are getting up to above and beyond the Iraq War.

And then come back and tell me there is NO difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

[Demobrat]

30. Like I said.

Don't bother to use Bush as a whip.

[VelmaD]

39. Not using him as a whip

Merely pointing out that there are in fact HUGE policy difference between the Democrats and the Republicans that affect our lives. It's not Democrats at either the State or Federal level who push this extreme kind of anti-choice nonsense.

[edzontar]

58. I'm voting Dem in November, so that is moot.

nt

[MoonAndSun]

9. I guess I should not be surprised that this thread is falling like a rock.

Not surprised at all.:eyes:

[Demobrat]

12. I'm surprised it's still open.

Dissent is unpatriotic, donchaknow.

[mzmolly]

17. LOL

;)

[mzmolly]

10. I am trying to move into *forgiveness* mode myself. -sigh-

but it is damn hard when a night or two ago, in an interview Kerry did he said "The war was the *right* decision, but Bush went about it in the wrong way." :eyes: NO Mr, Kerry - it was NOT the right decision. You and others who supported this erroneous war made the WRONG decision. WE should have focused our efforts on the people responsbile for 911 PERIOD! NOW it comes out that Osama is in friggin Pakistan and we let him sit their so as not to *damage* relations with that country?! WTF?! Why the hell isn't anyone talking about that?? We wanted Saddam MORE then the people responsible for 911!?

I do hope I can get over my disgust with Mr. Kerry, but I get the feeling I'm in a no win situation. I imagine it will come down to a practical choice for me. *WHO'S LESS LIKELY TO FUCK UP THIS COUNTRY BEYOND REPAIR?* My what inspiration, a vote born out of fear of George Bush.

On an aside, I still haven't heard Edwards say the war was the wrong decision either. One of these men needs to eat crow and say "Hey, I made a mistake, and believed the pResident." I can't respect either until own the f**k up.

How in the hell can I forgive/respect a person who won't take responsibility for their actions?

[emulatorloo]

41. You are twisting Kerry's words very badly

Being against proliferation of nukes and WMDs is the right thing to do, and working to disarm bad people is the right thing to do.

Going to war as a first resort (what Bush did) is the wrong thing to do.

[RafterMan]

62. For me it's

This:

"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. "

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

versus this:

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1210b.html

Which gives me a suboptimal, but very real choice.

[w13rd0]

11. History is memory...

...and more than a few choose willfull ignorance and blind obedience over critical thinking and retaining more than a 20 minute (or one election cycle) attention span...

[RetroLounge]

13. What are words for...

MISSING PERSONS

Do you hear me
Do you care
Do you hear me
Do you care

My lips are moving and the sound's coming out
The words are audible but I have my doubts
That you realize what has been said
You look at me as if you're in a daze
It's like the feeling at the end of the page
when you realize you don't know what you just read

What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it's no use talkin at all

I might as well go up and talk to a wall
'cause all the words are having no effect at all
It's a funny thing am I all alone

Something has to happen to change the direction
What little filters through is giving you the wrong impression
It's a sorry state I say to myself

What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it's no use talkin at all

Do you hear me
Do you care
Do you hear me
Do you care

Let me get by
Over your dead body
Hope to see you soon
When will I know
Doors three feet wide with no locks open
Walking always backwards in the faces of strangers
Time could be my friend
But it's less than nowhere now
less than nowhere now
less than nowhere now
now
ow ow ow

Pursue it further and another thing you'll find
Not only are they deaf and dumb they could be going blind and no one notices
I think I'll dye my hair blue

Media overload bombarding you with action
It's getting near impossible to cause distraction
Someone answer me before I pull out the plug

What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it's no use talkin at all

What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it's no use talkin at all

Do you hear me
Do you care
Do you hear me
Do you care
tell me what are words for
Do you hear me
tell me what are words for
Do you care
tell me what are words for
Do you hear me
so tell me what are words for
Do you care
so tell me what are words for
Do you hear me
tell me what are words for
so tell me what are words for
Do you care
so tell me what are words for
Do you hear me
tell me what are words for
so tell me what are words for
Do you care
so tell me what are words for

[edzontar]

59. I love this song. They were a great band of Zappa related folks

Terry and Dale and the rest..love em.

[DinahMoeHum]

67. They were the band Missing Persons

Terry Bozzio, Dale Bozzio, Warren Cuccurullo, etc.
all Zappa alumni from his band.

:bounce:

[edzontar]

73. I saw them in person!!!!

They were great.

That Terry Ted, what a guy.

[redqueen]

14. Thanks for posting this

Hurts, but the truth sometimes does.

[Slice]

16. Well

I guess I can't forgive Dean for his support of Biden-Lugar, or his opposition to medical marijuana, or his comment that John Kerry is a Republican.

I don't know, I just don't think I can forgive Dean for these things. :eyes:

[liberalnurse]

18. Yet he dares to speak the truth......

the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Additionally, your a week late.....Dean is out of the race so stop the flame bait please.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

22. The truth is the unforgivable sin

At least, that's been my experience.

Nobody wants the truth. Nobody can handle the turth. The truth is un-patriotic and un-democratic. The truth hurts.

But when you come down to it, the truth shall set you free, but first it shall piss you off.

[Slice]

44. Huh?

You have changed your stances and candidates almost every day, Walt. First you talk about how you like Kerry. Then you don't like Kerry, and you like Dean. Then you can't vote for any of the candidates. Now you have a 5% rule, but you might vote for Edwards in your primary. Do you just say stuff to get responses?

[MoonAndSun]

20. Where in this post was Dean mentioned?

we're talking about the IWR that was voted on by our Congressional representatives. Stay on subject, and welcome to DU.

[Slice]

31. No

nt

[edzontar]

63. This is NOT a Dean post. I supported HD, but this is about

The other guys.

One of them is almost certainly going to be the nominee.

So let's discuss THEM for a while----

[mzmolly]

21. 1. Biden Lugar would have limited the agenda 2. He is not opposed to

Medical Marijuana and 3. Kerry voted to support the Republican agenda, so make up your own mind about that. With Dems like that, who needs fargen Republicans?

*Footnote on Biden Lugar, Kerry himself criticized Gep for NOT supporting it. He knew it was best, but lost his balls in the polls.

[Slice]

32. He's opposed to

MM. He killed the bill in Vermont.

I know it's hard to defend Dean. Let me just say that I am glad he crashed and burned.

[mzmolly]

40. Actually it's not hard to defend, my aunt is dying of lung cancer because

of her use of marijuana. My mother had a friend with 5 children die of lung cancer for the same reason. There are dangerous side effects of Marijuana, regardless of our zeal to deny that.

However, he want's medical marijuana to got through the same process all other drugs go through. That does not mean he's oppposed, he simply wants to treat it like any other med.

[Slice]

43. Kerry is for MM completely

Unlike Dean.

[diamondsoul]

86. Off-topic interjection-

there are now ways to use marijuana that reduce the amount needed for the affect sought, whether it be medical use or recreational use, and also reduce the likelihood of cancer since the user doesn't have to inhale smoke.

[edzontar]

88. All of this is VERY off topic.

Y'see there was this war vote..anyone remember it?

[w13rd0]

24. Funny...

...I thought Republicans were the ones that always brought up the Democrat in defense of their boys. This thread has nothing to do with Dean, setting aside your mistaken notions, is this even a factor? So you can't forgive Dean. Big whoop, I can't forgive Gephardt, now tell me how relevant that is...

[Slice]

33. lol

:hi:

[Duder]

53. Forgive Dean or not but...

...at this stage that is a very weak defense for Kerry & Edwards.

Better than Bush are pathetically low standards.

[Anwen]

77. Give it a rest.

This is a thread about Kerry, Edwards and their votes for the IWR.

Dean has nothing to do with this.

[XanaDUer]

19. How do you reconcile Gov. Dean's stance that unilateral

attack on Iraq, without proof of WMD, was appropriate?

This has been asked, and re-asked many, many times here on DU.

So what is it?

On 9/29/02, on Face the Nation, Gov. Dean stated that the US should have gone to the UN and given them a set of conditions to be met within 30-60 days. If the UN did not do this, then the US would go into Iraq.

On 2/20/03, in a Salon interview, Dean reiterated this statement by stating the same thing, even more strongly worded. In that article, he said that if the UN chose not to enforce its own resolutions within 30-60 days, it would be unfortunate, but unilateral action would be necessary.

This does not concur with his statements that he was the only candidate to oppose Bush's actions from the beginning. It seems that Dean supported the very actions that Bush took up until a few weeks before the invasion began.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate who opposed the war, and had to vote on it, because he was in Congress.

The first article is FILLED with Gov. Dean's belief that WMDs exist, and that Bush is telling the truth. Among some other things.

Kerry also *had* to vote, as did Gephardt. At the very worst, they could have abstained. Candidates who did not have to make a decision, but could change their stance as events unfolded, have no right to second guess those who actually had to make that choice.

[mzmolly]

27. Again, read the articles in context and the parts where he says

'THE CASE FOR WAR HAS NOT BEEN MADE'

How many times does one have to point out that the quotes you note are taken out of context?

However, Dean is not in the equation, nor is he the subject of this thread...

Now, back to the subject of Mr. Kerry. Care to help us reconcille this please?

I saw a thread that Kerry opposed the war, and just days ago, he said it was the right decision, gone about in the wrong way. Which is it?

Does Kerry feel this war is/was necessary or not?

[XanaDUer]

68. They are not out of context at all

The "case for war has not been made", and then Dean goes on to do a later flip flop and states what he would have done.

It is you who are taking this statement, "the case for war has not been made" out of context. Dean made this comment before he said what he would do was. That was, to go to the UN with a set of conditions to be met, and if they were not met, we would reserve our right to go into Iraq. The statement Dean made in February included NO SUCH reservations for conditions to go to war. Dean directly stated that we should go to the UN, given them 30 to 60 days, and if they would not enforce their own resolutions, the US would go to war with Iraq unilaterally. It is not out of context, and from the beginning of Dean's statements on this, he indicates that he has reiterated this concept of unilateral war "eight times" the day he made those comments during his interview.

That was to go to the UN with a set of conditions, and if they were not met, THAT would make the case for war.

I cannot speak directly for Kerry. I believe his stance, from the start was that war would be a last resort after exhausting all diplomatic efforts INCLUDING the inspection regime of UNMOVIC. That required at least another three months of inspections, according to the rules governing UNMOVIC.

As Kerry has stated, once we went to the UN, it was for the UN to decide whether condition for war existed, and up the the President to prove the only other condition, under which Kerry approved of war.

That was imminent threat to the US. So actually, Kerry's stance was more reluctant to go to war than Dean. Kerry set no time constraints upon the use for the exhausting of diplomatic and peaceful methods.

Neither did the Iraq Resolution. It subjects the UN behavior and performance to its own internal guidelines, and NOT arbitrary guidelines set by the President of the US.

So YOU are taking it out of context.

PS-the original post is about not forgiving Kerry/Edwards their votes. I contend there is nothing to "forgive", nor does Dean have a superior platform on the issue. He wiggled in the wind, and thought he could ride the wave of anti-war sentiment into the WH, when it was convenient.

He did not oppose the war from the start, as his support of Biden-Lugar indicates.


EDIT:TYPO

[Zomby Woof]

72. out of context?

LOL, the usual dodge more suited for Scott McClellan press conferences and other dubious defenders of embarrassing statements that appear poorly chosen in hindsight. The context speaks for itself. I have posted on this subject with FULL citations and quotes in the past. No one was able to refute the clarity of his support for an invasion, pre-waffle (not to mention his subsequent theft from DK). No one is able to now, either.

As for Kerry, well... at least he is accountable for his vote, which I have always made clear I disgreed with. Dean, had he been in Congress, might have voted for IWR as well, as his statements have suggested. He has the luxury of NO accountability, and therefore, LOTS of wiggle room.

[Nicholas_J]

81. Correct

Considering Dean support of Biden-Lugar, first claiming it would have required that Bush go back to Vongress for authorization to go to war, and then later admitting that Biden-Lugar did not require such a return to Congress is another issue which indicates that Dean supported Bush's ability to go to war in Iraq without a second vote.

The fact that he didnt know that he had supported an amendment (Biden Lugar was a Senate attempt to amend the Iraq Resolution not to eliminate it) that would not have prevented Bush from taking the action he took anyway, and in fact, had less of a requirement for the president to engage the U.N.

The difference between Biden-Lugar and the Iraq Resolution was that Biden Lugar allowed the full use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein but did not allow him to be deposed. so essentially it is correct to state that if Dean was in power, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, disarmed or not. Biden Lugar made no other changes to the Iraq Resolution.

A list of the Senate Replacement and Amendments to the House Resolution were:

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

http://epic-usa.org/action/alert.php?n=33

Only the much ignored Levin Amendment would have placed the strongest constraints on the President, REquiring both a U.N. Resolution to go to war, and A second vote of the Senate pending action or inaction of the Security Council


Dean supported a full war on Iraq, supported the so called IWR with an amendment that would have left Saddam Hussein fully in power after a war to disarm him was concluded.

This is all that is necessary to point out that Dean supported the same resolution as Kerry and Edwards signed, except that Dean would preferred to leave Saddam Hussein in power afterwards. Given the discoveries of the nature of his regime since Iraq has been occupied, that would have proven to have been a terrible support of some of the worse human rights violations of the 20th century.

[Padraig18]

23. It's been a bitter pill to swallow, edzontar!

Sadly, I have come to the decision that I have no choice but to swallow it. I must now focus on which of the 2 pro-IWR candidates now in a clear contest for the nomination I can most easily accept in the role of leader of my party, and that choice is not a difficult one to make. Setting aside the IWR vote, it is crystal clear which candidate has the better positions on NAFTA/GATT/WTO, taxes, jobs and health-care--- John Edwards.

There is SO much that is truly good and decent about Sen. Edwards, and for me, he is the last best hope this party has to avoid disaster at the polls in November.

[MoonAndSun]

26. Vote your convictions, Padraig18. If that means voting for Edwards,

then do it. And then work your butt off trying to make the changes in our party the Dean was and is working so hard for.:toast:

[Padraig18]

29. I am forever a Howard Dean Democrat!

I will never cease to work for the changes that we all know MUST be made withing our party, but some battles must be fought at a later day and place. I am firmly convinced that my efforts must focus on preventing an electoral disaster in November, which is what I believe to the very marrow of my bones that a Kerry nomination would mean.

:hi:

[MoonAndSun]

37. Howard Dean Democrat here, too!!

And I will fight like hell to change the party from within, just as Dr. Dean will.

:hi: right back atcha!!

[Padraig18]

50. Howdy!

:hi:

[Cha]

25. I signed a Pledge when we were

petitioning these senators, that stated all the reasons they shouldn't vote for the IWR and they turned out to be true.

The Pledge also said I wouldn't be voting for them if they went ahead and Voted "yes" on the IWR because I would consider them "weak" and I don't want someone who is weak going up against bush.
That "Voice For Change" Pledge means as much to me today as it did then.

Thank you for your post, edzontar!

[Upfront]

28. William

Wrote this stuff back when he used to be right. I think he is backing Kerry now, my how time changes things. I know he sure doesn't like Dean and we all know where he stood on the war. Hmmm. :wtf:

[Minstrel Boy]

34. Let's flash forward to March 20, 2005

Massive demonstrations are planned around the world to mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and a Democrat is in the White House. The president is giving no assurances of a withdrawl; he's merely finagling with a UN fig leaf, even as US troops become more entrenched in their garrisons, and more Americans die.

It won't be Bush's war anymore, just as Vietnam ceased to be Johnson's after Nixon's victory. What then?

So much for Anybody but Bush. How about, Anything but This?

[redqueen]

36. Most Excellent Post I've Seen All Year!

:yourock:

BRAVO!

[ozone_man]

35. I can't vote for an IWR candidate.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards. At least Edwards admits his position, but Kerry has yet to take responsibility for his vote. When the war was popular, he was a cheer leader, when war was unpopular, he blamed Bush for the war. I could no more vote for Kerry than Bush.

[tobius]

38. I wonder if they took the threats of "I will never vote for you"

and filed them in the ABB folder.

[HFishbine]

42. Does anybody know

If Scott Ritter was given the opportunity to speak to the Foreign Relations Committee before the war vote as Will Pitt was calling for?

According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be avoided at all costs.

"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."

<snip>


Scott Ritter wants to be present as a witness on Monday when the Foreign Relations Committee convenes its hearing, a hearing that will decide whether or not America goes to war in Iraq. He wants to share the information he delivered in that Boston classroom with Senators who have spent too many years listening to, or propounding, rhetorical and speculative fearmongering about an Iraqi threat to America that does not exist. Instead, he wants the inspectors back in Iraq, doing their jobs. He wants to try and keep American and Iraqi blood from being spilled in a military exercise promulgated by right-wing ideologues that may serve no purpose beyond affecting the outcome of the midterm Congressional elections in November 2002.

"This is not theory," said Ritter in Boston as he closed his comments. "This is real. And the only way this war is going to be stopped is if Congress stops this war."

http://www.lexingtonjpc.org/Scott_Ritter_Boston_723.html

[WilliamPitt]

45. H was not

[HFishbine]

54. That's a damn shame!

I wish I'd seen your call to action when it would have helped, Will. Was there any reason given, or did they just ignore him?

[Snivi Yllom]

60. Since edzontar brought up your very passionate post from 2002

Do you have any insights on it looking back?

[WilliamPitt]

70. Insights?

Nothing that will pass the smell test. I was furious when I wrote that. I've watched everything unfold since. I'm still grossed out by the party leadership, but I'm voring D in November no matter what.

[edzontar]

74. It was an eloquent post, Will. you can be proud of it.

nt.

[Walt Starr]

76. I know it fired me up when I first read it

n/t

[LosinIt]

97. Uh, Will, was that perhaps a freudian slip??

I'm still grossed out by the party leadership, but I'm voring D in November no matter what."

[Snivi Yllom]

46. Scott Ritter as we all know thinks poorly of Kerry

based on his IWR vote.

[MoonAndSun]

49. Here is the link to Newsday where Ritter said that Kerry knew there

were no WMD's.

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

[Snivi Yllom]

51. soooooo dead on

Sen. Kerry followed up this performance in October 2002 by voting for the war in Iraq. Today he justifies that vote by noting that he only approved the "threat of war," and that the blame for Iraq rests with President George W. Bush, who failed to assemble adequate international support for the war. But this explanation rings hollow in the face of David Kay's findings that there are no WMD in Iraq. With the stated casus belli shown to be false, John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with.

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.

"Where is the leadership?" John Kerry asked more than 30 years ago, questioning a war that consumed life, money and national honor. Today this question still hangs in the air, haunting a former Navy combat veteran who needs to convince a skeptical nation that he not only has a plan to get America out of Iraq, but also possesses the leadership skills needed to avoid future ill-advised adventures.

[MoonAndSun]

52. A very sobering article by Ritter,

eom

[bigtree]

93. You ignore the fact that John Kerry fought for our country in that war

then opposed it when he believed Nixon was prolonging it and the rationale for war with Vietnam had crumbled.

Skip over his rationale now and replace it with a cynical anger at what Bush did. Bush did. The resolution doesn't authorize what Bush ultimately did. You can't show that no matter how you stretch it. So it flies in the face of comity to suggest that Kerry favored invasion and occupation. He has never said that he favored what Bush did, before or after the vote and invasion. Nothing that he did sanctioned what Bush did. Not the resolution. You can't use the IWR to cover Kerry with the preemptive, unilateral invasion because the resolution mandates against that.

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.

And:

(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.


That's the law. The president threw it aside. Kerry's going after him.

[RichM]

47. Only DK & AS have been steadfastly against the war AND occupation.

ONLY Kucinich has been a leader in Congress against both.

Meanwhile, the two "major" candidates both supported the invasion, and are now implicitly accepting the occupation, with its profound immorality and enormous cost. Dean was tactically against the invasion, but a "stay the course" voice on the occupation.

What does it tell you about the Democratic Party, when the only voices advocating peace & justice are ridiculed and marginalized - and only the voices of invasion and occupation are taken seriously?

How many times have Edwards & Kerry even mentioned the word "O-I-L" in their discussions of the war? Added together, the total = zero.

[Slice]

48. The war was not for oil

If we wanted Saddam's oil we could have taken it back in 1991.

[RichM]

55. The war was indeed for oil, among other things.

It was also to obtain a huge military base in the Middle East, and to secure the geostrategic dominance that comes from controlling a major oil & natural gas source. It was also for water, and for Israel. It was for a lot of things - but to deny that it had anything to do with oil is ridiculous. (Which, of course, is exactly the position of Bush, Kerry, and Edwards -- ALL of whom are pretending that it had only to do with WMD in the beginning, and now has only to do with "building democracy.")

We could not really have taken it in 1991. Militarily, we could have done so, but it would have been politically unacceptable, and might have risked a confrontation with the USSR, which still existed.

[HFishbine]

57. The "we" then

was not the same "we" of today.

[edzontar]

64. The war was/is about oil, power, politics, greed, stupidity

And so much more,

But oil is in there.

Halliburton, anyone?

[Anwen]

56. Thank you for posting this.

I can't bring myself to forgive the IWR votes cast by the very people we elected to speak up for us.

Anybody could see through the flimsy logic Bush used to push this war. We all did, right?

Those IWR votes were unacceptable -- and I won't forget.

[MoonAndSun]

65. Well Anwen, most of us did back in 2002 and in the early part of 2003

and some of us still remember how betrayed we all felt during that time.

But now it seems as if it doesn't matter at this point in time anymore to some who were vehemently against what the Senators in Congress did in October 2002.

I too, will never forgive those Senators who did vote for IWR, and many of them I had great respect for. The ones who did regret that vote and who said they were "mislead" by bush* and say the war was and is wrong, and Harkin comes to mind, have regained my respect and trust.

[edzontar]

61. The discussion has been good here so far...Thanks for not flaming...

nt.

[Jax]

66. Thank you for the post in the first place

This oily bloodbath has a face in our house.

I cannot forgive that vote. One of my Senators, Patty Murray voted no and she is up for re-election this year.

Jax

[MoonAndSun]

69. One of the few brave souls in the Senate.

You are lucky, Jax to have her representing you.

[Jax]

71. I know, I am lucky

She returns every e-mail and phone call we make to her herself.

My husband and I will actively campaign for her.

Jax

[edzontar]

75. She did good. I hope she wins.

nt.

[Snivi Yllom]

78. this will really piss you off

keep repeating, ABB, there IS a difference between the parties.

Daschle satisfied with war progress

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/02/20/news/local/news05....
By Denise Ross, Journal Staff Writer

PIERRE - Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

He said he is not upset about the debate over pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, an issue that has dogged President Bush as Democratic presidential contenders have slogged through the primary season.

[edzontar]

79. Daschle has to be the ultimate whore.

Yes, I was thinking about well everything was going as all those Iraqis were being bown up at the police stations and the UN released its "elections are impossible" report.

Oh what a lovely war!!!

[bigtree]

80. I fully respect the judgment and resolve that the nay voters expressed

But I wonder if we are correct when we don't allow the Senators and others their rational for their vote, as stated before and after the final resolution passed.

Okay, so some don't accept their words. Others are free to ridicule their judgment. But to claim that the IWR vote enabled or gave cover to Bush belies the facts on the ground, and substitutes the actual intentions of individual Senators and even the intention of the resolution with cynical simplifications.

There are indeed differences in motivation for the IWR vote as expressed by Kerry and Edwards. There are further arguments in support of the IWR that were expressed by the republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats.

Some had no problem with Bush's unilateral, preemptive invasion. They expressed that before the vote.

Others, like Sen. Byrd, rejected the process outright. There is no guarantee, however that the nay vote would have restrained Bush. Remember, Bush had gone around for days claiming that 1441 gave him authority to do whatever he wanted in the region. Indeed, the War Powers Act referenced in the legislation gives the executive authority to commit forces without congressional approval for 60 days. At that point, under the Act, Congress would be tasked to draw up a resolution of approval or disapproval. I believe that Congress would not have retreated and withdrawn forces. At that point it would have been useless to direct them in the resolution back to the U.N. Security council.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution. The only restraint that could be agreed to in the republican-controlled Congress was through the IWR. Sen. Kerry voted to hold Saddam accountable, to force Bush back to the U.N., and to restore the inspection regime, which would have further forestalled war. His every action was to forestall war. His every action was to hold Saddam accountable. His every action was to prevent unilateral, preemptive invasion.

Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed forward with unilateral. preemptive war. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

[edzontar]

83. Even some J and E supporters have been known to admit that

The Senators' pro-war votes were matters of political expediency.

Make of that what you will.

But I cannot respect or forgive anyone who would even consider approving a criminal war and the resulting loss of lives for purposes of personal, political gain.

[bigtree]

91. that's just conjecture

and a twisting or ignoring of Kerry's words.

That assessment of personal, political gain has no basis in fact. No one had any idea how the vote would be seen months away. Also, it was no sure thing that Bush would rush past Congress to war. How could anyone know what the political landscape would look like so far away from the vote? How could anyone know, even if they thought we would be at war, what the politics would be far down the road? Wouldn't voting with your party be the safe vote?

Reasoned, principled opposition to the resolution must be respected and honored, but reasoned, principled opposition did not just lie with those who opposed the resolution.

Kerry thought the nation was at risk because of the evidence presented. he made his judgement on that basis, for a measured, international response, with the reintroduction of inspectors to put a lid on the thing. Bush disregarded that. How could anyone have forseen the events as they unfolded? How could we know for certain? We could speculate on the existence of weapons but the inspectors (Hans Blix) could verify and diffuse the conflict. They were allowed back in because of the force implied in the resolution. That was the effect of Kerry's vote. The decision to rush forward was always Bush's responsibility. He had sold his phony 'evidence' to the U.N. but they wern't going to sanction immediate invasion. Blix wanted more time. Bush balked.

But you may just ignore all of that and claim that it was politically expedient for Kerry to vote aye on the IWR, with no mid-term election in sight and this present campaign nothing more than a twinkle in Howard Dean's eye.

Go on and ignore his statements if you will. Call him as much as a liar and an opportunist.

He said that he acted out of concern for the safety of the nation. He has been consistent in his aim to remove Saddam in concert with the U.N. beginning with his vote for the Iraqi Liberation Act signed by President Clinton. His IWR vote was an extention of that.

To assert that he would have acted as Bush did is to ignore his consistent call for an international response to the certain threat that Saddam posed to his country and the region. You will have to ignore Sen. Kerry's fights to halt the proliferation of weapons and weapons material around the globe. The IWR vote was an extention of that.

It served a political purpose in Dean's campaign rhetoric to harp on the IWR vote and wrap Kerry up in Bush's sin's. It didn't play out in the country. Show me where the country holds Kerry responsible. Bush wont be able to find cover for his impatient war.

He won't be able to cover himself in the IWR, nor does he try to. He can't. The resolution doesn't authorize the course he ultimately chose to prosecute his preconcieved invasion and occupation. It mandates against what he did, and most voters understand that. Most Americans expected the president to tell us the truth. Most Americans expected the president to keep his word to Congress and follow the law. The resolution was the law. The president threw it aside. Now he has to be held accountable in this election. We are the next line of defense.

[sampsonblk]

92. Ditto

I won't soon forget how furious I was when Dem senators voted YES on the IWR. I will vote for Kerry, because anyone is better than Bush. But John Kerry is a hard pill to swallow for me.

[goobergunch]

84. kick

:kick:

[quaker bill]

85. I could not agree more.

250 dead Iraqi's so far this month stand as a further testament to the lack of principled democratic leadership on this issue.

[edzontar]

87. Kicking!!!!

[WillyBrandt]

90. You don't have to forgive or forget.

It was horrible and shameful. At best, it was profoundly stupid. But it was far from best.

But what choice can get us the hell out of here?

[zoeyfong]

94. All I can say is "Hear, hear."

[Piperay]

96. You don't have to forgive them

but it would be wise to think of who is going to resolve the mess over there, who will let it continue on with no plan to get us out. What is bush doing and going to do verses what the Democratic nominee do, I think it should be obvious which side will do better.