Does this get Kerry off the hook re: his Iraq War vote?

[WilliamPitt]

First, a couple of flashbacks:

----

#1

“Senator,” said Alterman, “I think you may be the most qualified candidate in the race, and perhaps also the one who best represents my own values. But there was one overriding issue facing this nation during the past four years, and Howard Dean was there when it counted, and you weren’t. A lot of people feel that moment entitles him to their vote, even if you have a more progressive record and would be a stronger candidate in November. How are you going to win back those people who you lost with your vote for this awful war?”

(snip)

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. 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.”

(snip)

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.” Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.

...more...

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

-----

#2

WRP: Senator Bill Nelson revealed last week that he and some 75 other Senators had been given an intelligence briefing by a Bush administration official just before the Iraq war vote, during the time frame of those quotes I just read. In that briefing, they were told that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but had the technical capability to strike American cities on the East Coast with unmanned drones filled with these poisons. Nelson refused to divulge who gave the briefing. I want to take you back to this time, to September and early October of 2002. What were you thinking about during this period, in the days and weeks before the Iraq resolution? I know you can’t reveal classified briefings, but were you getting at the time data that persuaded you that a yes vote was the proper course?

JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about.

WRP: I wrote a book last September called ‘War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know,’ which stated that Iraq’s WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

...more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

==========================

OK, now...

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(snip)

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. The search options on the left can be used to find statements by any combination of speaker, subject, keyword, or date.

All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials. This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made.

These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false. The statements began at least a year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” The Administration’s misleading statements continued through January 22, 2004, when Vice President Cheney insisted: “there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” Most of the misleading statements about Iraq — 161 statements — were made prior to the start of the war. But 76 misleading statements were made by the five Administration officials after the start of the war to justify the decision to go to war.

The 30-day period with the greatest number of misleading statements was the period before the congressional vote on the Iraq war resolution. Congress voted on the measure on October 10 and October 11, 2002. From September 8 through October 8, 2002, the five officials made 64 misleading statements in 16 public appearances. A large number of misleading statements were also made during the two months before the war began.

(snip)

Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading
statements about the urgency of Iraq’s threat, 81 misleading statements about Iraq’s nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq’s chemical and biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda.

(try to vote as if you haven't already made your mind up. RIF)

[ulysses]

1. no.

[WilliamPitt]

2. You read pretty fast

I posted this 1 1/2 minutes ago. Wow.

[ulysses]

6. I do, in fact.

Besides which, I read the first part when you posted it some months ago, and the rest is the same "we never thought they'd lie!" apologia we've seen for even longer.

[WilliamPitt]

8. But they did lie, 237 times

many of which came in the 30 days before the vote. I learned that from reading the Waxman report.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. That's presupposing that the lies weren't transparent.

[sangh0]

29. Hans Blix believed Saddam had WMD's

but I guess the guy who led the UN's inspection team is just a naive naif

[Exgeneral]

111. he was subject to the same bad intel from OSP that everyone was

what about Scott Ritter? Freepers like to call HIM naive.

[sangh0]

143. Right, which is why my point is

that the criticism that Kerry should not have been fooled by Bush*'s lies rings hollow because there were many other credible sources telling Kerry that Iraq had WMD's.

[WilliamPitt]

31. You knew for a fact that there was no uranium from Niger there?

Wilson didn't blow that lid off until July 2003.

Etc.

If you read my book, it does not say there are no WMDs in Iraq. It says there's nothing of any vast quantity there, no al Qaeda connections, and so weapons inspectors were the order of the day. The book clearly indicates gray areas where WMDs might exist, like VX specifrically.

So...

[Mairead]

Wasn't that the one that the intell folks said looked 100% Amateur Night?

[WilliamPitt]

118. Perhaps. They don't say it anymore.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

154. Not at all.

I readily admit that WMD was a definate possibility. As a matter of fact, I would say that I was convinced at the time that they were very likely in existence. My opposition never hinged on WMD. It hinged on the fact that Iraq had no means of delivery. Iraq was effectively parcelled into thirds by no-fly zones. It was surrounded by militarily superior neighbors (Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia). It was monetarily crippled by a decade of sanctions. It had no ascertainable connections to Al Qaeda. Powell's "proof" at the UN was lacking. The aluminum tubes, which correlated to Niger, were already known to be questionable. On and on... (Ritter, a $350B Defense budget compared to a $1.3B Defense budget, etc...)

10,000,000 people marched in the streets worldwide. Was it a coincidence or an obvious recognition of bullshit? It stretches the imagination that someone of Kerry's intellect could be blind to all the signs that pointed to an unjust war. Simply put, Iraq was never a threat to the US.

Iraq was never a threat.

[ulysses]

32. once or 237 times

We've established that they lied, to the shock of no one except, evidently, the Dems on Capitol Hill who trusted Bush.

[sangh0]

10. Who needs steenkin facts

when one's principles tells you everything you need to know?

Why does uly need to read the post when he already knows he is right?

[ulysses]

47. what facts did I miss, sangha?

I'll wait.

[sangh0]

144. The 36 pages of new material

in the last link WP provided.

[Jacobin]

9. Actually you posted this a couple of months ago

and no it doesn't get him off the hook.

Isn't this beating a dead horse? I mean, many, myself included, have been down this sad, tired, dusty road and have swallowed the fact that we are going to have to vote for someone who voted to invade Iraq for personal political reasons. It bothers me a bit from time to time, but then mostly I just try to forget about it so that I can force my hand to write the sonofabitch a check.

And then, you come out with the same lame crap he uses to justify it.

Thanks for nothing.

[sangh0]

12. Actually, the last part is new.

.

[Jacobin]

15. Ya mean the part that says he was lied to

and didn't have access to all those articles in the NYT by former Bush I figures warning against the invasion?

Or suggesting that all the good information was "classified" and he couldn't figure it out.....like no one would let him use google to research the issue.

Yeah. That ain't new. That's as old as the hills, only the words are changed.

[sangh0]

20. It's 36 pages long

It says more than just "he was lied to". You'd know that if you had clicked on the link, but I guess people who start out knowing they're right don't have to learn the facts.

[Jacobin]

44. My point is/was that everyone knows Kerry voted for the IWR

and that over one hundred other congresscritters DID NOT.

Those who are pissed off about it are working really really really hard to put it behind them. I know I am.

Why rub salt in the wounds with long winded rhetorical flourishes that convince no one? It seems completely and utterly counterproducive to me.

If he had anything worth saying, he could say it in a couple of pages, with a little effort for editing.

I'll be goddamned if i'm gonna wade through 36 fucking pages of more bullshit just to see the same old crap he's been saying for over a year now.

Again, if he were serious about communicating something new, it could be condensed into a readable text. Don't EVEN try to tell me that it would take 36 pages to catch all the nuances. If he's that piss poor of a writer, then he can't fucking communicate.

Mounds of blather do NOT persuade.

[sangh0]

145. That wasn't your point. Take responsibility for what you said

You stated an untruth about the information provided, and now, instead of admitting you made a mistake, you're trying to cover up your mistake by raising another issue.

I'll be goddamned if i'm gonna wade through 36 fucking pages of more bullshit

Of course you won't read it. Why bother when you already have all the answers?

Again, if he were serious about communicating something new, it could be condensed into a readable text.

Maybe he's not interested in communicating to those who can't understand anything more complex than a bumper sticker.

Mounds of blather do NOT persuade

You left out the last two words - "the simple-minded"

[Jacobin]

155. my my my, testy aren't we?

Let me start off by saying that I won't suggest that you are simple minded. Merely naive.

Let me understand your "point". A supporter of Mr. Kerry expects prospective voters to read a 36 page tome on his prevarication about the IWR and expects this to somehow be beneficial?


As simple minded as I may be, I do have a degree from a four year college and a 4 year professional degree and actually write quite a bit for my living. Thus far, I am not homeless. Let me suggest to you that BLATHER, particularly LENGTHY blather will not effectively persuade.

Besides which fact, I happen to believe that contemporaneous blather is more compelling than after the fact blather, and having received Senator Kerry's contemporaneous blather in the form of canned emails at or about the time of the disastrous IWR vote, in response to faxes and emails that I sent his office, I can tell you that I CANNOT FUCKING STAND TO LISTEN TO THIS, THIS, THIS person prevaricate for another god damned second, particularly when the mendacity is tediously and needlessly lengthy.

If, and I say IF, the sonuvabitch that I FUCKING WRITE CHECKS TO (for crying out loud) will deign to suggest in a somewhat more condensed version, another version of why he simply covered his political ass and voted to kill thousands of people (maybe he was stoned when he thought he could "trust" bush?), I would be happy to read it.

Otherwise, the peddlers of this crap can take a flying leap.

Respectfully,

Jacobin

[sangh0]

165. More spin

A supporter of Mr. Kerry expects prospective voters to read a 36 page tome on his prevarication about the IWR and expects this to somehow be beneficial?

Gee, and here I thought my post was addressed to you, and not the entire nation. IOW, I expect you to read it if you're going to comment on it.

That's the point, which escaped you.

[blm]

If only Biden-Lugar had passed everything would be perfect, eh?

Reward Biden-Lugar supporters but punish IWR supporters?

Still inexplicable.

[ulysses]

tell me how it would have been functionally different

in the long term.

[blm]

57. It wouldn't. They were functionally the same by all honest assessments.

The point being that many of those who will remain angry at Kerry for IWR, had no problem rallying around Dean who supported Biden-Lugar.

Still mystifying to those of us who note the hypocrisy. That's all.

[ulysses]

59. the question wasn't about Dean

and Dean isn't the nominee.

[blm]

60. I note WHO holds IWR against Kerry.

And most times it happens to be someone who had no problem with Dean's support of Biden-Lugar.

Pointing out hypocrisy when it appears....that's all.

[ulysses]

62. see, this is what I love.

One cannot say "boo" to a hardcore Kerry supporter about a valid issue without having the discussion turned back on Dean.

Dean's stance on Iraq is a valid issue as well, but two things - 1. Kerry was the one with the opportunity to vote on the thing, and 2. Dean's not in the stupid race any more. Please, though, feel free to keep driving the issue into the ground.

[blm]

72. Who drives IWR into the ground?

Many of the same people who have no problem with Biden-Lugar. The day that makes sense is the day that I'll get over my shock over those who won't budge on Kerry's IWR vote.

Till then.....I will hold that mirror up as needed.

[ulysses]

105. say hi to reality

Kerry was in a position to vote, Dean wasn't. Not fair, perhaps, but then Kerry didn't have gay marriage handed to him. Luck of the draw. Would Dean's vote have been disappointing had he been in the Senate? Possibly. But he wasn't in the Senate. And he isn't the nominee.

"Hold that mirror up" as much as you want, but it's your boy in the chair now, not Dean.

[blm]

121. The mirror is for those who PUSH the double standard.

It's for the Let's pretend that Kerry and Dean's positions were so different that Kerry "cannot" be forgiven crowd. The sanctimonious bullshitters.

I prefer my sanctimony with sincerity and accept it from any Kucinich supporter.

[Nicholas_J]

171. Biden Lugar

was an amendment to the IWR and not a separate bill, which allowed the president the same power that were contained within the IWR, but would allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power after any war to disarm him occurred. So Bush woul have ben allowed to go to war under the same terms set in IWR, but Saddam wouls have had to be left in power afterwards. Only effect of Biden Lugar.

[htuttle]

3. What will get him off the hook is deciding to change course in Iraq

If he states that he will change the doomed course the US is on in Iraq, then he's off the hook, as far as I'm concerned. That means none of this 'peace with honor' stuff -- just get us out. Do whatever the UN needs to make amends, and get out.

If he tries to 'win' in Iraq where Bush failed, however, I fear that he will become 'LBJ version 2' by the time his first term is over (and wouldn't that be ironic, considering Kerry's background).

I'll vote for him in November, but I'll also protest against him March 20, 2005 if he doesn't treat the invasion as a terrible mistake and get us out of occupying Iraq.

[sangh0]

13. He has already said that

Kerry has said he wants to "internationalize" the occupation. That means "bring in the UN"

[cornermouse]

4. Why would it?

1. Americans are dying because of this mistake.

2. Someone in his position should make it his business to find out the facts and not rely on the White House as a source.

3. Not finding out the facts and therefore, the lies is negligence.

[elperromagico]

5. Now we're beginning to see why senators rarely win the White House.

The Senate, by its very nature, calls for compromise. You have to vote up or down on most legislation. A governor can veto a bill and insist on changes. A senator has to make a choice one way or the other and hope for the best.

You could take almost any senator's record and make him/her look like a waffler. Of course, we could do the same thing with the Bush record. But we know what Bush would do - he'd go through his spiel about 9-11 changing everything, and use that as an excuse.

[bahrbearian]

30. Pity the primary voters wanted him, eh'

[elperromagico]

138. Bahrbearian's Revenge, I see.

[seg4527]

7. The only thing that could make up for any of the Senators voting for war:

Would be an undeadafier. To bring back the countless thousands of people who died because of them.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. he's only off the hook if you put him on the hook to begin with

Which I didn't. I understood Kerry's vote and while I didn't agree with it, respect his choice.

Anyone who thinks he would have started this war, just like Bush did, is more wacked out than Jenna Bush at Mardi Gras.

[For PaisAn]

14. No

With all due respect, Will...you knew better at the time and so did I. Yet you ask if Kerry should be let off the hook? Why didn't he know better? Byrd knew, Kennedy knew, Kucinich knew, etc. Kerry voted politically and sometimes doing so comes at a price.

[MrBenchley]

16. A majority of Americans agreed with Kerry then

and like him have come to realize how badly they were misled and lied to.

I don't think "I told you so" makes for a very good campaign strategy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. seems we share rent space with lots of people who would rather be right

than remove the source of the condition.

[MrBenchley]

50. No room for doubters among the fanatical...

[AntiCoup2K4]

70. First you must recognize what the source of the condition is.

George Bush Jr is not the source. He is a puppet. A moronic, drunken, coke-addled illiterate, unelected asshole of a puppet, but a pawn just the same. The problem goes far deeper than Junior, and it's not limited to just the Repukes. Those who have controlled their party since the early 50's now control this one as well. And your hero John Kerry is their servant. Whether he know it or not, but his votes and rhetoric of the last three years would suggest he's very aware of it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. John Kerry isn't my hero or savior. I am not messianic in my approach

to politics..I prefer religion and politics be separate.

In this interation, I don't believe Kerry to be the one that is possessed...the one that smelt it dealt it.

[looking glass]

17. He's the nominee

So the hook wasn't important enough to most primary voters to make a difference.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Not the point

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Kerry cheerleaders like to play up his supposed "exposure" of the Bush....

....Criminal Empire. So if Kerry indeed knows exactly how evil, criminal, immoral and dishonest these bastards are, then how could he possibly say he believed Bush would do the right thing in Iraq?

I expected Bush to lie. It's usually a given if his lips are moving. How the fuck can Kerry say different and have any credibility?

He alone is responsible for his Bush enabling votes.

[JVS]

22. good point

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Thanks for not straying from the script

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. There's no script. Only the reality.

Bush lied. Kerry enabled him to get away with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. No that is your narrow subjective assessment...if Kerry enabled him then

that means if Kerry had voted No war would not have occurred, but that isn't the case is it?

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. I didn't say Kerry ALONE enabled him, did I?

I had the exact same problem with Edwards and Gephardt, but their not the prefabricated nominee, so that makes Kerry's enabling votes more relevant at the moment.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. "prefabricated nominee?" Do you make this stuff up as you go?

[AntiCoup2K4]

58. How could I "make it up" if I'm "using the same script"?

wouldn't that be a contradiction??

And yes, Kerry is the prefabricated nominee. Through means of media manipulation and possibly an assist from Diebold in some areas. The candidate chosen by the DLC and the Mediawhores is the the one who emerged in the end - 5 months prior to the convention!

If you actually liked the guy from the beginning, more power to you. But that certainly wasn't the case for most of the votes he received, which were based on nothing more than the "electability" LIE.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. And this is what I find inspiring about Dean supporters...the buck stops

1. in the media
2. in the voting machine
3. in the behavior of other candidate
4. in the DLC
5. Everywhere but Dean's poor naive, amatuer campaign

[AntiCoup2K4]

95. Give me a break.

You don't think hearing "Dean's UNELECTABLE" and "Only Kerry Can Beat Bush" repeated endlessly for weeks had any effect on the "sheeple" out there? Yeah, I know that's not putting a lot of faith in people, but after a string of polls saying 70% of the population believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11, my faith in the public is at an all time low. And while it was in fact Dean who utterred the now infamous 2 second "YEEEEEEEEARRRRGH" in Iowa, there's no question it was blown entirely out of proportion.

If you don't believe Diebold voting machines are corrupt, then you must be living in a cave next door to Osama.

Dean/Gephardt/Torricelli ad. Nothing else need be said about behavior of candidates.

DLC had a hand in all of the above, and God knows what else. Even with Kerry, they seem to be emmbracing the same "play to lose" strategy that worked so well for them in 1994 and 2002.

Dean's campaign was the only living organism in this party for MONTHS. While Kerry was mortgaging mansions, Dean was ressurecting a comatose party. We can't help it if the DNC & DLC decided they liked being plugged into machines (corporations) better than actually being healthy.

[sangh0]

170. If the media defeated Dean

then why would you think Dean had a chance of winning the GE?

No matter what excuse or reason you can think up to explain Dean's defeat, the fact still remains that he was defeated which indicates he couldn't have won the GE.

[Mairead]

83. "Kerry's vote couldn't have prevented the invasion"

No, but he was still responsible for voting NO. Because that's what you do in a life-or-death situation: the best you can, no matter how tiny that best might be.

And if he were a leader, he would have argued and cajoled, and led the fight against it in the Senate. But he's not a leader. And he's not principled. And he's the presumptive Dem nominee. Goddess help us.

[sangh0]

146. 51 votes in the Senate-

On the day Bush* announced his intention to put IWR to a Congressional vote, all 49 Republican Senators plus Lieberman and Miller announced they would support it.

Conclusion: It's Kerry's fault

[Hav]

39. Thanks for not straying from the script

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. deleted wrong post

[sangh0]

25. Hans Blix says he also thought Saddam had WMD's

as did EVERY intelligence agency in Western Europe. They weren't all fooled by Bush*. Some had their own reasons for assuming that Saddam had WMD's.

[Hav]

49. You posted that so often now

and I think it's a very important and interesting point but I never really saw a response to that from those who think that Kerry was a gullible fool to believe there might have been a threat.

[sangh0]

147. They are afraid to respond

It takes time away from their reading of the script

[nomaco-10]

64. Hans Blix was interviewed on MSNBC and CNN last night.....

He said in both interviews that he came to BELIEVE that there were no WMDs in JANUARY 03 and wanted the inspections to go forward. Time line is very important here.

[Jacobin]

80. Good grief. Next we'll hear that "Clinton thought he had wmd, too"

You're stealing Hannity's talking points, now.

Its how the intel was evaluated, and what decision was made based on that evaluation that at issue. and Kerry blew it, in a very very big way.

Smirk didn't know and didn't care. He was just doing what Cheney told him

Kerry was trying to save his political ass and it rightfully backfired on him.

[sangh0]

148. You are contradicting yourself

On one side of your mouth you argue that Kerry knew Bush* was lying about the intel and voted for political expediency, and on the other, you argue that Kerry was fooled by Bush*'s lies

[no name no slogan]

133. They also said Saddam was NOT a threat

If indeed Saddam may have had WMD, he had no effective methods to deliver them.

Iraq had been under strict sanctions for twelve years. Seven plus years of inspections had eradicated all apparent traces of their WMD program(s).

Saddam couldn't have hurt a fly last March. He was the most monitored person on the planet. Iran was not afraid of him. Saudi Arabia was not afraid of him. How in the hell could ANYBODY in this country claim they were afraid of him, when his reach didn't extend further than 70 miles outside of Iraq's borders, at most?

I and many other people watched the same media as Kerry, had access to the same resources as the Senator, and knew the credibility of Bush, Chalabi and the PNAC cabal. If we and millions of other citizens of the world could see through Bush's lies, why couldn't a three-term U.S. Senator?

Kerry played politics with his vote. He played wrong.

He can still recover if he puts forward a plan to get us out of that quagmire ASAP. For example, by going to the UN, getting a mandate, relinquishing US government (and corporate) control of Iraq's assetts, and allow the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny.

Unfortunately, it appears he wants another 40,000 recruits for the armed forces to continue the "mission" in Iraq.

I will vote for John Kerry this fall. However, I will not campaign for him, nor send him any money. I have many other worthwhile campaigns that need help, and they will get my support.

And I have a feeling that I'm not alone, either.

[sangh0]

149. "They"????

Pay attention. My post was about Hans Blix.

FYI, France, Germany, and even Howard Dean all thought Iraq had WMD's.

[Zhade]

161. I remember quite differently. Some evidence of your claims would be nice.

NT!

[corporatewhore]

78. he suffers from a medical condition

lack of spine

[sangh0]

150. Hans Blix has no spine?

I suppose you made regular trips to Iraq under Saddam?

[Zhade]

160. Astoundingly good point. I'd like to see an answer for that conundrum.

I don't think those two points can be resolved.

[sangh0]

166. Asked and answered

Bush* wasn't the only one saying Iraq had WMD's. Hans Blix and every intelligence agency in Western Europe was saying the same thing. Clinton, Gore, and even Dean saida they thought Iraq had something.

[Zhade]

169. No, see, I know that's your assertion. I'd like to see evidence of that.

Particularly the allegation that Blix believed that Iraq had WMDs.

I'll take this chance to point out that the whole WMD issue was a red herring anyway - even if Hussein HAD concealed a whole bunch of WMD, that still wouldn't have made preemption acceptable. After all, the United States has more WMD than any country on Earth.

The only difference between b*sh and Hussein is that b*sh invaded on a false pretext. Hussein actually had the go-ahead on Kuwait (via April Gillespie's comment that the U.S. had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts) and a reason (Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields).

I'm not condoning that invasion, of course. Just pointing out the irony.

[sangh0]

172. Read the newspaper. Read LBN

It was all over the news and DU yesterday. Plenty of DUers have seen it and have commented about it in this thread and there are several threads about it on DU. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Try Google.

[Zhade]

173. "I'm not here to do your homework for you."

In other words, you can't back it up. No surprise there.

I have tried google, and do read news, including LBN. That's how I know your assertion regarding Blix is, at best, a partial truth.

[sangh0]

174. How hypocritical

You want to claim that I can't back myself up while you make an accusation that you haven't backed up.

You know what Blix said, and that's why I'm not falling for your ploy

[Zhade]

176. Well! You sure put me in my place, didn't you?

Hypocritical? Hardly. But feel free to believe what you wish - you will anyway, regardless of the facts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Evidence get someone off the hook? Only in the movies.

In some corners of DU people's appeals to emotions and what they believe they know weighs much more heavily than 237 lies, pictures, details and briefings by individuals that have credibly testified before you in the past.

This is exactly why although I DID NOT like this vote, I can forgive it....I, like Howard Dean, would have never wanted to be in a position where I actually had to make a choice...

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. The choice was rather simple.

"Was Iraq a threat in any way to the United States of America?"

Yes or No.

Why is that choice complicated? Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. And if it exists, produce it and prove the case.

Do you think Junior could have proven his case in any courtroom?

And if it wouldn't be enough evidence for a conviction, how could it be enough to justify a war?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. That wasn't even the choice...the only simple thing demonstrated in that

post is your thought process.

and YES, in court, Bush could have indeed proven his case at the time...most of the evidence REFUTING their assertion was proven false after the fact.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. Bullshit. The evidence itself was flawed.

Plagarized decade old college term papers. Forged documents about Nigerian uranium. The lies of a wannabe dictator (Chalabi) who hadn't been in Iraq since 1956. Any judge who allowed a conviction on that shitty evidence should have been disbarred.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Did you see all the evidence? Did you sit in closed door security

briefings? BTW..people are convicted on shitty evidence all the time and judges aren't disbarred over it....

[AntiCoup2K4]

61. But would you vote for one of those judges?

If you knew the judge deliberately allowed such false convictions?

Would you vote for a prosecutor or a defense attorney who knowingly and deliberately perjured themselves and/or encouraged their clients to do the same?

Bottom line: If you knowingly enable a liar, and serious consequences come from that liar because you enabled them (and the deaths of 560 Americans plus thousands of Iraqis is pretty damn serious) are you any better than the liar himself?

In fact, aren't you an accessory to the crimes resulting from the lie?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. And if you suspect someone is a liar and you are wrong and the other

person was a threat and you relied on your gut and people died, should I then trust you?

I saw the evidence...questioned most if not all of it and didn't feel we should go to war.

Kerry's choice was Up or DOWN on a resolution that required good faith efforts, which good faith efforts were not honored.


Finally, you are assuming he KNOWINGLY enabled a liar in order to place your own bias in the best possible light....if I had to choose...I'd take the erroneous judge over the overtly biased one any fucking day of the week...both are prone to errors of omission...one by his faith and the other by his obstinance...

[zoeyfong]

156. I saw them lie, twist, deny, exaggerate, and distort.

Therefore, i could only assume that the evidence was entirely irrelevant to their rush to war. Am i supposed to assume that what i *don't* see runs 180 degrees opposite to what i *do* see? The State of the Union speech (2002) was a case in point; in the most important, most public speech on the war that Bush made, he included in it the claims that sadaam was trying to buy uranium from niger and that he had bought aluminum tubes suitable only for making a centerfuge. As you know, one of these claims (uranium) was likely an outright lie, the other was deliberate misrepresentation also, because it was contrary to what most knowlegable sources said. Now, if this 'evidence' is the best they had, i.e., they thought it was good enough to go public with, then what was the rest of their 'evidence' like? Well, it's a moot point; you're obviously grasping at straws to try to justify the unjustifiable.

[MessiahRp]

151. What I keep wondering is

Why do we all debate this issue repeatedly? Bush had over 100,000 troops in the Middle East prepared for war well before the IWR vote, and just like UN support, he sure as hell wasn't planning to wait for Congressional Approval for this. He was going with or without Kerry's vote. So we can beat ourselves over the head with the fact that Kerry supported the War based on lies he was given, or we can point our finger at the guy who wanted war at all costs and remove his ass.

Plain and simple.

Rp

[edzontar]

24. I will never agree with what Kerry did re-IWR. But I will vote for him

Anyway--because Bush is so much worse.

Better a less than perfect Dem candidate than a monstrous Repuke asshole.

[bobthedrummer]

26. Giving him every benefit of doubt, I'm undecided.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Congrats! You're the first Undecided in the poll!

Took a while. :)

[VelmaD]

35. I'm undecided on this too

Part of me is still really angry with Kerry and all the others in the House and Senate who voted for the IWR. When I'm reading some of Kerry's statements on this I want to believe him. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt because I agree with him on so many other issues. I'm not a single-issue voter so I'm not letting the IWR vote keep me from supporting Kerry.

I just wish Will. I just wish he had stodd up and been counted when it was important. As little faith as any of us put in the administration it's hard to completely forgive him for believing them.

Thinking about it makes my brain hurt. *sigh* I just keep telling myself, Kerry never would have gotten us into this mess in the first place. If I focus on that I can cope a lot better. :)

[Vladimir]

33. It would be forgivable

if the consequences hadn't been so blindingly obvious to everyone outside Capitol Hill. The only thing that can get Kerry off the hook is his own conduct from the moment he is (hopefully) elected president - but nothing can change how much of an ass he was to vote for the IWR.

V

[AngryAmish]

40. I have a problem with his explanations

He is my candidate and I support him. However, the explanation is too long.

It would help if he had something shorter to shoot down the accusations of flip-flopping on the resolution. His stump speech about all the factors he considered in making the vote is ok for a stump speech, but the American people need short, pat answers to questions.

Frankly, I suspect that his explanation to Rolling Stone was the best: "I didn't think he would f--- it up so badly." (paraphrase).

Let the WMD thing alone because he is vulnerable on that issue also.

[Dogmudgeon]

46. I was a dumbass, too

I thought that since this was so potentially important an issue, that Bush had to be leveling with us about it. After all, he had nothing to lose by telling the truth, and everything to lose by lying about it. Right?

Right?

I figured, he probably has intelligence (which was my first mistake) to the effect that Saddam was better armed than we thought he was.
I mean, Saddam not only had yellowcake uranium, but he was also drilling holes in the heads of his prisoners as a form of torture.

I fell for it. It looks like a large number of legislators fell for it, too.

As much as 9/11 ever did, this bolus of lies has changed America forever. It was tough realizing a president would lie over a juvenile sexual romp -- but this was about a major geopolitical issue with enormous life-and-death consequences. Not even George Bush could be so sociopathic!

I just posted about it elsewhere. No, I am not proud of having been so easily misled by so base and banal a tyrant as George Bush. My own embarassment comes not so much from having been insufficiently hip, than from doubting how depraved the powerful could be.

It's also why I can't use the IWR vote as a litmus test. There was no rational basis for it other than believing a liar who had sworn to tell the truth. A lot of DUers try to make the case that votes for the resolution were expressions of pandering, but who can tell now? I have to assume that at least some of the votes were cast in good faith ... but whose?

Will Pitt's quotes sum it up for me: I believed the "smoking gun" had been found. I believed Bush was being truthful. I believed Bush. I was wrong.

The solution isn't to find the purest candidate or the most cynical candidate, because the problem is that George W. Bush is not just untrustworthy, he is willing to sell the entire world for his own gain.

--bkl

[Hav]

52. yeah I have similar feelings

Like Howard Dean once said "I tend to believe the President."
(don't shoot me if that was wrong and out of context, that's not about bashing Dean)
One shouldn't be too frustrated that one fell for the lie. One should be outraged that the President lied about such important things like WMDs and national security. It speaks volumes for that President.

[emulatorloo]

48. Kerry should have know enough to fund and create his own personal CIA

at least according to some here. . . .

Seriously, thanks for the link to the Iraq on the Record Report. . .I can only imagine how compelling some of these presos seemed. . .we only saw the lite stuff.

[ulysses]

53. careful what you say, folks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x15521

[legin]

56. jesus n/t

[WilliamPitt]

65. I always feel like...somebody's watchin' meeeeeeeeeeee

I figured it'd be helpful to give them a heads up. Concersations like this are always so civil, ya know?

[VelmaD]

68. ACK!

I swear to gawd you are THE WORST about getting songs stuck in my head. And it's gonna drive me nuts until I can remember the name of the person who did that damn song.
:spank:

[boxster]

109. Rockwell.

Michael Jackson on vocals, no less. Three or four noses ago.

[nomaco-10]

69. I think you like people watching you.....

I think that's why you post stuff like this. Let's keep all those wounds open so some people can keep rubbing salt into them for the pure entertainment value and the lift it gives some when they get a hundred replies.

[WilliamPitt]

84. Post stuff like what?

An interview, a report on another interview, and a comprehensive 36-page report from Congressman Waxman? That qualifies as "stuff like this" with you? Jeez. Don't take this personally, but your standards are kind of whacko.

[nomaco-10]

93. "Stuff" like trying to white wash Kerry's IRW vote......

"Stuff" like that Will.

[WilliamPitt]

98. I provided data and a poll

Your mind is made up, and that's fine. "Whitewash" is the wrong word. Apologies for stepping outside the approved ideological boundaries.

[legin]

74. Problem is

for a writer you sure managed to pick the wrong words.

The way you wrote that Admin post, I saw an image of you sitting there monitoring this thread, finger hovering expectantly over the alert button, waiting for 'a live one'.

[WilliamPitt]

85. Actually, I went to the store to get some cigarettes

It's snowing again, by the way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Now come on Will...put down the green beer and go erase that message

It was a shitty thing to do and admin needs to be warned that there will be a flame war in GD 04 about as much as fish need to be warned that the ocean is wet.

[WilliamPitt]

It was a shitty thing to do?

I watched the first 20 posts pop off and thought, egads, here we go, and warned the Mods. Anyway, I can't erase it now.

Wow. Sensitive folks 'round here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. Hey I'm not trying to pick on you

but I think setting people up to feel as though they are going to get alerted on feeds paranoia...

[legin]

92. Try and sound a little more apologetic next time

as opposed to manically gleeful as whole loads of foul lefties fall straight into your carfully laid trap.

I'm on 4 warnings by the way.

[WilliamPitt]

99. "manically gleeful as whole loads of foul lefties"

"fall straight into your carfully laid trap."

That's pretty funny. Show me an example of manic glee.

[legin]

110. i've been thinking about this

What the problem is:

You start the thread off with "Is Kerry off the hook". 'Off the hook' is a fishing metaphor, so you get people sub-conciously thinking in that sort of direction from the start.

You then make the really big mistake of posting that little admin thread. I'm sure it reads different to you, but when I read it, it turns into the short version:

"Well I haven't had a bite so far today, but I have good feeling, my instints tell me I'm gonna catch lots of big fish."

The lesson would be: beware of fishing metaphors in GD2004.

:-)

[WilliamPitt]

113. Just trying to reel you in with my data

Oops. Did it again. :)

Seriously. Swear to God. I was laying NO TRAPS. I wanted to alert the Mods because I saw this thread becoming a brawl.

[legin]

119. :-) nt

[ulysses]

81. why?

You start what you know will be a contentious thread then pre-alert the mods and admin to potential trouble? We have uncivil conversations here every day. Why the need for a heads-up on this one?

[WilliamPitt]

86. As stated

I posted this, watched the first 20 posts start to get edgy, and warned the Mods. I really, honestly don't see the crime.

[ulysses]

94. can we get a blow-by-blow account

of the alerts you send?

[WilliamPitt]

100. If you want

I'm at zero right now. I'm going to go QC the truthout edition for the night, and then I'm going to watch West Wing on Bravo, and then I'm going to have a beer. Because I'm a dork, I'll likely watch the new West Wing at 9pm.

Paranoia self-destroya.

[ulysses]

101. just let us know.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

102. I'll keep you...um...posted

:)

Silly.

[ulysses]

103. please do.

It's always nice to know what's coming. :)

[WilliamPitt]

106. OK

I'm just testing to see if you're one of those people who has the manic desire to get the last word in.

I've got the last word right now. Can you manage? :)

[ulysses]

108. neat trick.

If I respond I'm manic. Go on with your bad self. Post away.

[WilliamPitt]

114. Last

word.

:)

[Exgeneral]

116. tainted love

:)

[WilliamPitt]

117. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:)

[VelmaD]

67. Jesus...

stalking much, uly? ;-)

[ulysses]

82. me? no.

Call it my own "spidey-sense". :)

[billybob537]

55. Lies

Big fat juiicy ones. mountians of them.One told to back up another. A willing conspiracy of liars. Each one pushing the point to the next enabler. They duped the House the Senate, and the American people. The Republicans should be the most upset with the Bu.. Sh.. admin. Thier credability is so tarnished. Neo-conseratism? No. Neo McCarthyism.

[welshTerrier2]

63. The Truth Will Emerge

two points: i totally support Kerry and no, i still think his Iraq vote was hideous ...

from Senator Byrd's eloquent speech:



Congress, in what will go down in history as its most
unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the
foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to
ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy
Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which
will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the
occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How
will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at
home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth
military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit
which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the
President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the
shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and
shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.

[Mairead]

76. No. Thousands are dead, and children maimed for life. He's complicit

in those killings and maimings and, like BushCo, he will *never* get off the ethical hook for them.

Because thousands--tens of thousands--of people in Mass begged him, pleaded with him, to vote No. He ignored us all for his personal political gain. Millions of people all around the world knew it was bullshit, knew that we were in no immediate danger, knew they were lying, knew it was all about oil.

That's the key, really: we were in no immediate danger and people with functioning brains knew it. Kerry could have voted a clear NO without in any way making it harder or slower to take action if suddenly a real threat arose.

He bought it, he owns it.

[Uzybone]

90. and so are you

after all your income goes towards supporting that illegal war. My point is....can we just blame Bush for this war. Him and his cronies planned and executing this war.

[Mairead]

96. No, I'm not. I have no functional choice. Kerry did. He not only had a

choice, it was his *JOB*.

[sangh0]

175. 51 votes

On the day Bush* announced that he would have Congress vote on IWR, 49 Repuke Senators plus Lieberman and Miller announced that they would vote in favor of IWR, giving IWR enough votes to pass.

But Kerry could have stopped it with his ONE magical "No" vote.


:crazy:

[mike_c]

77. Kerry is spinning....

“I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period.

snip

I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

The U.N. inspectors were already working in Iraq. Blix presented his report to the UNSC just prior to the invasion, and indicated that Hussein was granting access, cooperating, and so on. Kerry is using Bush's own rhetoric here. WE kicked the inspectors out. Subsequent events have proven that Blix was correct in assessing the condition of Iraq's weapons stockpiles. We engineered the situation to prevent the U.N. inspections program from reaching the conclusion that Hussein had complied with resolutions demanding that he dismantle his WMD programs and stockpiles.

There was plenty of credible information available to contradict the Bush* administration's war propoganda. Kerry blew it, presumably for political reasons (I don't want to believe that he was actually gullible enough to be duped by dumbya).

[Dr Fate]

79. "If the charge against me is that I should not have trusted Bush..."

"...then I accept that charge. It saddens me to say so, but perhaps my critics are right, I should not have trusted the President on this issue..."

THIS is what Kerry needs to say.

THIS talking point will shut up the RW & media critics like a clam.

I give you the Dr. Fate gurantee on that one!!!

[nomaco-10]

91. Many of us that have ended up.....

finding ourselves in the unenviable position of trying to get behind the ham sandwich have stated this a million times. Kerry has flatly refused and as far as I'm concerned the statue of limitations has run out for such a mea culpa on his part.

[Dr Fate]

97. Disagree with you...

...for one, I dont see Kerry as a ham sandwich. The guy keeps getting better and better- and I look forward to more...

Did you see his speech today? I saw no "ham sandwich"- I saw a DEM kicking some ass...

And no, it's never too late to unleash a new talking point for the media horsies to talk about...

I disagree with you.

[Dhalgren]

142. And I agree with you , Dr.

Kerry should just say that everyone should feel safe in trusting the President, but that THIS president has lied so much that he can no longer be trusted (never could be). It is a shame and a slap in the face to every US citizen and we're going to restore faith in the president by replacing him in Nov. Kerry just needs to say "Bush lied. Next question."


On edit: Oh, and I don't let "Kerry off the hook" for his IWR vote (I didn't support Biden-Lugar, either, nor have I ever supported anyone who did). But, Mr. Kerry doesn't care whether I "let him off" or not - nor do any of his supporters. So it is really a dead issue. Vote for him or don't vote for him, it is, of course, everyone's own decision.

[zoeyfong]

157. Didn't have anything to do with trust. It was politics.

All the evidence Kerry needed was out there for the world to see. He joined the rush to war because he did not have the integrity to resist it, if going against it meant possibly losing votes in his upcoming presidential bid.

[corporatewhore]

87. you are asking the wrong people will

you should be asking the families of the innocent iraqis who were slaughtered and the Military Families (i am my father is an active duty officer hes been to iraq will be redeployed next year under bush or kerry btw) to let him off the hook "i didnt know bush was going to fuck it up" aint gonna cut it.Kery voted yes on authorizing bush to use our troops my father other peoples husbands wives children and parents god and you know i could let him off the hook if he were to say i would want to pull out but no. I would like to ask him a question that he once asked how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake

[Dr Fate]

104. No, those are not the only voters....

...Kerry needs to do a lot more than secure the votes of the families of veterans.

Great rhetoric- but how is that supposed to help us DEMS put a stop to all this madness?

BTW, do you even know Kerry's policies on Veterans and their families?

I'll bet they do.

[corporatewhore]

152. i do know his vets but i also know his policy for active duties

thats what troubles me i dont want my father to die in an unjust occupation under kerry any more than i want him die in an unjust occupation under bush

[Mobius]

88. Even without all of the information

It boils down to Kerry or Bush. I realize that's a bit simplistic, but hey, it's true isn't it? So vote for the liar or the one that got duped by the liar. Your choice.

[flaminbats]

107. Talk about push polling!!!!

I'm convinced baby, no poll required...:hippie:

[TinaTyson]

112. Here is Hillary setting up the 'trust' angle.

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/iraq_101002.html
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


...

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

[TinaTyson]

115. Here is John.

He trusted a Bush? Rummy? Cheney?
Didn't he investigate them for several things?
Say huh?
Politics.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

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.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

[TinaTyson]

120. This was no honest mistake. This was a very carefully calculated mistake.

[zoeyfong]

158. As we know, there were a lot of politicians trying to cover their

asses when they voted for IWR, in case the war went bad. It's standard political maneuvering, and when it comes to matters of war and peace, it's not going to cut it. In the early '90's i had a homemade bumpersticker that said "Hillary in '96." I would have liked to have voted for her for Prez, but I will not vote for her now, after she caved on IWR.

[Droopy]

122. I'll give him a pass

I still think he should have known better, and I'm still not so sure that his vote didn't have political motivations behind it, but this is the guy I got to vote for.

[eridani]

123. He's only a regular two-faced politician---

--who happens to be running against a certifiable psychopath. I'll take the politician any old day.

[goobergunch]

124. The following 156 members of Congress voted against the IWR

Representatives:

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

Senators:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

It seems that 156 members of Congress were not fooled by the Bush* Administration's lies. I will support Kerry for President. However, he should have known not to trust the Bushies.

[Droopy]

125. Good point, Goob n/t

[corporatewhore]

131. OMG!! i see a fewof Repugs who werent fooled

[Sparkly]

126. Kerry's remarks 10/09/02

This makes me more inclined to consider him off the hook:

...Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting 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 that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community...

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

I believe he was misguided -- purposely misguided, by the Bush administration. Should he have known better? I don't know if that matters now. At least, it seems to me, he's been consistent in saying what he believed, why he voted as he did, and what he thinks of it now.

[KoKo]

127. No! it doesn't. But, I'm pragmatic......I understand politically why

he did it.

I have to be with Dean on this, because he "spoke for me" with my signs.

Kerry has do do what he does to distance himself from "anti-war" to be "Electable" to get rid of the "Chimp."

BUT...as long as Dean stands up for those of us who "marched while people flipped the bird in our face and looked on us as some "Commie Fringies" I will be happy to have Dean as the "Gingrich of the Left" if Kerry want's to be the "Mainstream to Beat Bush" and he can do that as long as Dean and Kerry play the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine.

Maybe only those of us who have a history with the Dem Party can see what might be going on...but I hope to God that what I'm seeing is correct..that Dean is the New Gingrich of the Left and is serving as the "release valve" for those of us who are "unforgining about Gore/2000 and all the other crap we've taken from DNC/DLC.

If the PARTY recognizes and approves of Dean as that "safety valve and listens" then I'm Okay with Kerry. But OMG, if Kerry turns out to be a Daschle...then "wrath of Dem Defectors" who have been trashed for too long will be the folks that our party will have to answer to.

How long do we have to give a pass to the folks who didn't "support Clinton/Gore?" but sold them out?

[Paulie]

128. Doesn't get a pass....

the author of this document convinced me:

http://www.kucinich.us/DennisKucinichWasRight.pdf

;)

[WilliamPitt]

129. D'oh!

OK, Paulie. You n' me. Round n' round.

:)

[Paulie]

130. As long as I pick the venue!

We'll do rounds here, http://www.fogodechao.com/ , last man standing wins! :D ;)

[WilliamPitt]

134. I would prefer the Rumsfeld castle

http://www.theonion.com/news/

[For PaisAn]

132. Well that document really covers it all

Thanks Paulie. I'm guessing that Will Pitt wrote this?

[WilliamPitt]

135. Yup

[CTLawGuy]

136. maybe

Kerry said he was "wrong to trust the president". He did not come out and say "I was wrong to vote for the resolution," but this is close. Good for Senator Kerry!

[RetroLounge]

137. Who really gives a fuck anymore?

If the vote was 200000 to 1 against, would that change anyone's vote here on DU?

Would less boring dreck about his tortured conscience be posted?

Would less calls to the mods to watch the poster's back be dropped in ATA?

Could I care Less? :boring:

Either Kerry voted the political expedient and mostly spineless way to try to save his ass, which makes him a normal politician. Or he voted because he was stupid enough to be fooled by bush* and his lies. Or he figured he had no other choice as the lesser of 2 evils. Neither of the answers really makes me warm up toward the guy.

But he gets my vote. Not my forgiveness, and not that he needs it. Late at night when Kerry is talking to his God, maybe he'll ask forgiveness for his vote. or not. Or maybe he doesn't need forgiveness and he voted the only way he could in the situation. But really, do you need more reinforcement that you backed the right horse in the race. He won.

If it was 200000 to 1 in favor, what would change?

p.s. Tainted Love...

RL

[Forosuul]

139. No

Nothing gets him off the hook for it.

That does not mean he does not get our votes. But voting for him does not mean we approve all of his actions. He fucked up on the IWR. Period. He did what was politically expedient rather than what was right, and he will never fully live it down.

But he will still get the votes.

[blm]

153. Yet Dean is rewarded for Biden-Lugar which was not functionally different

from IWR. Go figure.

Sanctimony and hypocrisy rules the day.

[ScreamingMeemie]

140. No. I'll clarify by saying I support Kerry since my guy's out, but he'll

never convince me on that vote. He knew what would happen once Mr Bush got that vote in his hot little hand we all did. Remember the collective depression that day? I wish Kerry would just own it and move on. I still stick on it because he won't admit that he made a mistake. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

141. For the morning crew

[vision]

159. What do you mean by off the hook?

Do you mean not hold him responsible for his vote?

Or do you mean by "letting him off the hook" voting for him in the GE?

I will vote for him in the GE. I voted for DK in the Primary because he stood up for what I believe in.

I was against the war. I believed that it was possible that Iraq did have WMD. But I did not believe that he was a threat and IMO that not one single American life or Iraq life was worth going to war.

I'm just a guy. I don't think that I can change the world, I'm not wealthy or powerful or influential. But I stand up for what I believe in and support those that believe as I do.

IMO Kerry and others, did not stand up for what I believe in. I still remember the heartache I felt when "Shock N' Awe" happened. If he can live with his decisions more power to him but I know I have to live with mine. He has my vote but that is probably it so far.

[Dr Fate]

162. Kerry is already on the hook of the GOP & media...

Why a Liberal would want to join the GOP & media landing one more hook in the guy is beyond me...

We are already in a 2 to 1 fight against the GOP & media...

Make a 3 to 1 fight, and say hello to Bush 2004 & Cheif Justice Scalia...

[vision]

164. I am voting for him

but since I don't trust him that is all he gets. He isn't "on the hook" with me but he isn't "off the hook" either. I am taking a "wait and see" attitude with Kerry.

[NightNurse]

163. Great,Will! MORE Crap Polls Like this ! Remind Me to Bop you one

with my handbag if you dare to slip-in-to-Philly!:spank:

[Malikshah]

167. The Reality of Damaged Goods

Nope--nothing will get him off the hook. End. Of. Story.

Folks need to accept the fact that Kerry is damaged goods in the minds of many.

Just as Kucinich is damaged goods, just as Clark, just as Dean.

In other words--stop trying to gloss over the issues that folks will not allow to be glossed over.

The task of many is to accept damaged goods and work with damaged goods.

By attempting to get folks to get over it etc. it just reignites the flames.

Those that championed Kerry throughout the primaries need to accept the fact the Kerry is the nominee and get over it--stop trying to reopen old wars that no one in the end wins.

BTW--Mr. Pitt--I am not referring specifically to you as the ardent Kerry supporter throughout the entire primary process--

The barn doors are open, the horses are gone--folks will learn to find a way or not--this sort of argument doesn't help matters.

[LividLiberal]

168. Kerry didn't vote to rush to war like Bush did

[Bucky]

177. I forgot the question. But getting nominated got Kerry off the hook w/me.

I supported an antiwar candidate and rejected considering Kerry because of his vote in favor of the IRW. But now that Kerry's our certain nominee, I don't hold that against him. Voting for president is not an open ended variable. It's multiple choice; inherently the lesser of two evils. This year the degree of "lesser" is greater than it's been in my whole life.

Kerry is off the hook until November, and then he's back on the hook for the next four years. That's how I think democracy should work.