John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War. A MUST READ!

[mzmolly]

...

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...

THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, Kerry voted to *DISARM* IRAQ.



...



...



...


More here: Why on earth haven't we seen this time and time again?!

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

John Kerry was very clear about his vote IMHO.

[noahmijo]

1. THANK YOU

I have been screaming this to both lefties and righties alike. I am so sick and tired of hearing those on the far left scream that Kerry is pro-war just like Bush he's no different than Bush he's a war monger ect

THANK YOU FOR THIS.

[mzmolly]

2. My pleasure. With all the Kerry supporters here, I wonder why on earth

this hasn't been posted over and over again?

Please bookmark and post as needed. :hi:

Thank YOU for your reply!

[lojasmo]

24. this has been posted ONE MILLION TIMES N/T

[mzmolly]

39. Well, now I guess that would be ONE MILLION AND ONE. Sorry...

:P

[lojasmo]

48. S'okay, Just saying....

Damn, can't edit subjects.

Just saying....we have seen it posted....ad nauseum.

[mzmolly]

49. Too late, editing time is expired.

;)

[lojasmo]

50. I hate that feature.

You're one damn fast poster. MzM.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Bookmark THIS

[Terry_M]

4. Got any quotes of him protesting the beginning of the war

when it was about to be started? Any moves he made in the Senate to stop it?

[mzmolly]

5. Yes I do, but I'd rather you research the matter for yourself.

:hi:

[Terry_M]

12. All I have found

is a statement of dissapointment that diplomacy hasn't been pursued effectively by the president.

[mzmolly]

14. That's a start, can you post it?

:shrug:

I was a Dean supporter, so I'm digging too.

[Terry_M]

16. Not very strong, doesn't say the president is violating any rules...

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=5839&keyword=Iraq&phrase=&contain=

[sandnsea]

19. "he botched the diplomacy"

and...

"It will take years to repair the needless damage done by this Administration, damage to our international standing and moral leadership, to traditional and time-tested alliances, to our relations with the Arab world, ultimately to ourselves."

With troops on the ground, I don't see how anyone who cared about those troops could make a stronger statement against a sitting President.

People always want to apply everything we know now to what was known then and it's impossible to do. And people can say they "knew" as long as many times as they want, but it was impossible for anybody to 100% "know" anything. That's why we needed to let the inspections continue.

I wish people would hold George Bush responsible for this war. He made the decision on when to deploy troops, all by himself.

[noahmijo]

8. See it doesn't work that way

When the president, whatever you may think of him starts to speak of serious items such as major threats to America, regardless of your opinions a man in kerry's position is supposed to listen and take it seriously even if it's coming from someone like dumbya because he is the "president".

You don't simply say YOU LIE! YOU LIE! I don't care! don't wanna hear it!

Kerry did what was absolutely the right thing to do. He didn't sacrifice politics in exchange for our national security, however he didn't immediately jump the bandwagon. He gave a very clear and concise reason for his vote.

The point is when the president, whatever the hell you think of him, says our nation is under imminent threat, you don't simply assume he is lying. Even assholes like Bush can be right 2% of the time. If that 2% is the difference between a safe nation or a nation that looks like Hiroshima after the blast, then you have to take it seriously.

This is why Kerry carefully gave his position of being in support of war ONLY if it was a last resort and ONLY if the UN was involved, but he did not support war in the same sense of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption.

What Bush did was lie and twist Kerry's vote into a support for war when it was simply a vote that would authorize the president to act ONLY if it was a last resort and it was multilateral.

[Terry_M]

9. I don't believe that is in the job description of Senators...

If they don't question the president who does? No one? Great!

[mzmolly]

10. Kerry DID question Bush, or I wouldn't have noted his position.

:shrug:

[noahmijo]

11. If he wasn't questioning the president

He would've agreed and voted with him hands down. Again all Kerry did was authorize the president to use force ONLY AS A LAST RESORT These were the conditions set these were the conditions * agreed to.

THEN * TURNED AROUND AND BETRAYED THAT TRUST.

[Amarant]

85. Oh bull shit

Where do you draw the line? Exactly how many lies and crimes had bush been caught in prior to this vote? A couple hundred minimum would be my guess.

The idiot bush FAILED to protect the nation MAJORLY previously. He sat on his ass for 10 minutes staring at a wall before he even acted.

We KNOW he has interests OTHER than what is best for the nation and the world. Saudi ties anyone? Money anyone?

You know, if you're a sailor on a ship under the captain you should reasonable be expected to follow his orders.

But when your captain has previously allowed crew to die due to gross negligence, taken the ship off course, and stared at a wall when he was supposed to leading in a crisis situation - then came to you one day drunk off his ass telling you to direct the ship in to an ice berg are you going to listen to him? I fucking hope not.

Granted - bush didn't come to congress drunk off his ass, but you know what? He came to them as a KNOWN LIAR, as INCOMPOTENT, and as criminal who had stolen an election. You are telling me it's anymore reasonable to trust him with out questions than it is to trust the drunken captain? Give me a break. Unfortunately too many senators blindly let him ram the nation in to the ice berg that is iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Do you have a short, or merely a selective memory?

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[Spiffarino]

6. This will be in the hands of Kerry supporters

This link is going in our local Kerry 2004 newsletter. Awesome reporting, mzmolly, and thank you. I have never seen it before, though I figured Kerry must have done more than just give Dubya a blank check. Now there's compelling evidence about exactly what he voted for and why.

Cheers!

[mzmolly]

7. Glad somebody else finds this of interest.

:hi:

[Terry_M]

13. Food for thought

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

[mzmolly]

15. Paul isn't running for office, but thanks for the input.

;)

[sandnsea]

17. 10,951 times

Thank you MzMolly, I really do appreciate the post. Really, sincerely from the bottom of my heart, I do.

But good god, us Kerry supporters have posted this ad nauseum for over a year now. Over and over and over and over...

You might also want to take a look at his January 23 speech, "Do Not Rush to War". http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5459/john_kerry/remarks_at_georgetown_university.php

And his remarks on the eve of the war, including:

"I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight...."

"...My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building - a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush. In the colloquial, we are where we are."

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5722/kerry/senator_john_kerrys_statement_in_response_to_the_presidents_speech_to_the_nation.php

[TA]

18. Thanks MZMOLLY, I wonder why Kerry didn't refer to this as needed

Even last Sunday, I think on 60 minutes, he was asked several times by Lesley S?? why did he give Bush the vote to go to war and was he for it? Both him and Edwards danced around the question a bit. A few quotes from this speech would have shut her up. Instead by answering her question the way they did left viewers (at least me)with some questions/confusion. Were they perhaps saving it for a golden moment like they did with the rightwings push for his military records?

[juajen]

21. I heard that interview

and I believe he did answer that question completely in line with his vote-statement. The difference is in reading his actual words or statement and him just answering the question. You're right, it would have been much more effective to read the actual statement. I hope he does that in the future and that this is widely disseminated throughout the internet.

[mzmolly]

47. He should say it again and again. Though he would likely be confronted

with the fact that he didn't support resolutions that would have limited the mission.

See Julie's post below. :(

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. Would you believe I've never seen that before?

That really puts to death the "flip-flopped on the war" charge. One could argue the points of whether Iraq was an iminent threat, or whether the multilateral effort was possible, but that's what he said.

BTW, why aren't we also hearing more about Kerry's answer to the "$87 billion funding flip-flop" charge? He said on Meet the Press that he voted to fund the wra IF the tax cuts would be rolled back as part of the plan. The funding plan was changed in order to prevent rolling back the tax cuts, so he voted against the funding plan. One could debate the points on tax policy grounds, but the flip flop charge doesn't hold.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Only the gullible believed that Saddam had WMDs

Are some of you suffering from selective amnesia?

Have you forgotten the pre-war debate in DU about the debunked WMD claims that were made by Bush and Blair?

Do you have any recollection of the many British press reports that laid bare the lies that the US and the UK governments were telling to drag our nations into a war for OIL?

Is there any integrity left?

Some of the apologists for the IWR vote remind me of the work that Winston Smith, the tragic hero of George Orwell's 1984, did for the Ministry of Truth.

[TexasSissy]

27. "Belief" of WMD is different from "knowledge" of WMD

Only the uninformed did not BELIEVE that Saddam had WMD. The WMD had been clearly documented after the Gulf War. Part of the U.N.'s resolution(s) was that Saddam was supposed to destroy them, report same to U.N., and provide proof of destruction or have a U.N. representative present during destruction. Saddam provided satisfactory proof that he had destroyed some of the WMD, but not for other stockpiles. Saddam simply said, "We destroyed them," which did not constitute proof. Therefore, all the world logically assumed he still had some of the WMD that had previously been documented.

But thinking, assuming, or believing that Saddam had WMD is very different from KNOWING that he has them.

The White House represented to Congress and the world that it KNEW that Saddam had WMD, based on intelligence, and further, that he had the capability of using them on America, and that the threat was immediate or alternatively, a gathering storm. That was the basis of the Iraq War. We now know the intelligence was wrong, and many of us believe that the W.H. knew the intelligence was wrong. Some of us even believe it played a hand in concocting the intelligence through Chalabi.

[IndianaGreen]

98. You believed Bush?

Because that is what you are really saying in your post. Did you even bothered to read the British press? Are you still relying on the lying American press as your sole source for news?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. I'm not used to you hurling insults at Dean.

"have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. " -Howard Dean's statement on the President�s decision to send U.S. military troops into war against Iraq: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[IndianaGreen]

97. Dean is not GAWD so he can be, and he is, wrong about Iraq and WMD

Now that we know that there are no WMDs in Iraq, what is excuse for keeping our troops there? What is the excuse for "staying the course", unless those that advocate the "Vietnamization" of Iraq wanted the war as much as Bush did.

[Sugarbleus]

23. I knew he said these things...it came out in the course of his

campaigning. BUT, he and Edwards and many of the Dems in Congress STILL THINK GOING TO IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA???? So what's that all about????????????????

Our government officials have lost their minds!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. You made that up.

The sentiment that you expressed, that Kerry still thinks going to Iraq is 'a good idea' is a fabrication. It is false. Not true. A product of your imagination.

[quaker bill]

25. It matters far less what Kerry thought he was voting for

Because what he actually said his yea over was IWR. It gave Bush sole discretion to make unilateral war on Iraq.

Anyone can say "I am voting for this or that", but in fact, what they are voting for or against is the resolution on the floor when the vote is called. It is a black or white choice, either you support the resolution or you don't.

I am sure Kerry would have voted for a more moderate resolution, if one had been on the floor for a vote. Of course as a Senator, he gets to propose alternates - or am I missing something here?

[JNelson6563]

26. Why yes, QB, a Senator CAN offer alternatives

or there is a tool we call "amendments". There were 2 amendments offered to the IWR, I believe. Perhaps a strong Kerry supporter could tell us what they were and how Senator Kerry voted on them.

That would be enlightening and helpful.

Julie

[liberalpragmatist]

28. he voted for them

I don't know the details, but I know he voted for them

[JNelson6563]

32. You sure about that?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

Levin amendment: nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234

Byrd amendment: nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Durbin amendment: yea

You get two nays and a yea. You were two-thirds wrong. So when you say "you know" something, what does it really mean?

Julie--who never claims to know what she doesn't

[mzmolly]

40. Thanks for the information Julie.

:( Would any of these have described Kerry's position above?

If so it makes one wonder.

[mzmolly]

37. I think the one thing * I * consider is that senators are forced into

a black and white decision.

Senators also get to have their say "on the record" when voting for a given resolution, I though what Kerry said would be of interest.

[CTLawGuy]

29. if I vote for the partial birth abortion ban

but say I am voting to increase education spending, do I get a pass too? :eyes:


Were you saying the same thing in Oct. 2002 as you are now?

[mzmolly]

38. What am I saying Darboy? Tell me please.

All I am saying is that Kerry made a statement on the record, that may be of interest to some here?

As for your analogy, it's ridiculous.

[CTLawGuy]

41. you are using it to justify Kerry's vote

and I am refuting that justification. My analogy is not ridiculous. Kerry voted for something that said one thing: "the president may go to war when he wants", and said he was voting for something completely different, "to get the inspectors back in; a show of solidarity, etc."

How is that not analogous?

[mzmolly]

43. I'm not justifying shit. I'm simply trying to understand his vote. eom

[Darranar]

30. What John Kerry SAID is irrelevant...

what matters is what he DID, that is voting for the resolution sponsoring Bush's war, whether it was unilateral or multilateral, an attempt at imperial hegemony or disarmament.

[mzmolly]

46. I agree to a certain extent. But, I am personally glad his thoughts

were more reasonable then his vote.

[CTLawGuy]

31. I don't care what kerry thought he was voting for...

If you give a child a beer and tell him he shouldn't drink it, should you be surprised when he does? And is it not your fault if he does?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. "Mr. President, do not rush to war"

it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism.

<snip>

destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

<snip>

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

[CTLawGuy]

42. 1000 soliders are dead

kerry could have helped stop that, he did not. He voted to enable it to happen.

[mzmolly]

44. True Darboy, but where do we go from here?

:shrug:

You forgot to mention the countless civilians that are also "dead."

[CTLawGuy]

54. we remember how the Dems were complicit in the action

and we never let them do it again.

[mzmolly]

60. Some Dems, the majority were not complicit.

However, I do hope a lesson was learned, and they don't ever do it again.

[CTLawGuy]

63. the problem is, if kerry wins

the only lesson they will learn is we won't hold them accountable...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. Your ability to predict the future is nonexistant.

The problem is, thinking it is a problem if Kerry wins.

[CTLawGuy]

70. There are many good things that would come out a Kerry win

one bad thing would be the one I described; the party would learn they don't have to listen to us on things like IWR.

[mzmolly]

74. You make a good point, but the the majority of the people, right or wrong

supported the war. So, it could be said that Kerry represented the majority of Americans?

I see your point however, and it's well taken. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can oust Bush and let Kerry know that we were not happy with his vote on the war?

How bout a petition that states, we are voting for you in spite of your letting us down on the war etc... but we will hold you accountable for the policies you implement in the coming 4 years yada yada yada ??

[CTLawGuy]

76. that might be good.

We should demand also that Daschle be removed as Senate leader, and we should support DFA candidates for Congress and Senate.

Most important, we should not try to justify Kerry's vote by revising history.

[mzmolly]

80. As I said, I am not revising anything. His words on the day of his vote

are a matter of record (as noted above.) How people chose to feel about those words is an individual matter.

I am supporting DFA and 21 Century Democrats.

If you'd like to draft a petition that would speak for many, feel free to get started. It may be cathartic. ;)

[mzmolly]

72. What if Bush wins?

Who learns what then? What kind of a statement do we send to the rest of the world if we allow another Bush Presidency?

I do hold Kerry accountable, but I hold Bush "ULTIMATELY" accountable, which is why he needs to be fired.

[CTLawGuy]

75. if Bush wins

then Kerry was unelectable... the DLC looks bad, and hopefully they'll lose standing in the party. Dean, Dennis, and the other anti-war candidates look like geniuses. People might regret picking Kerry becuase he's "electable."

But there are so many reasons why Bush should not win, that the above scenario is not worth it.

[mzmolly]

81. Dream on. If Bush wins, the DLC says it was because we didn't nominate

Lieberman.

I do agree no matter what, that the price is simply not "worth it".

[CTLawGuy]

88. the dlc can say whatever it wants

people would regret choosing kerry.

[mzmolly]

91. If Kerry loses, yes there will be regret.

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. You are wrong.

kerry could have helped stop that


That is not true. It's not even close to being true.

[CTLawGuy]

53. he could have done all in his power to stop it

which in my book would have been to vote against IWR and FOR a resolution that only allows Bush to go to war when it is CLEARLY necessary.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. A tacit admission that your prior statement was false.

I believe it is important to be truthful in our rhetoric, so I'm glad you are acknowleging that Bush is the one who took us to war, and no action by Kerry or any other Democrat had or had the possibility of even the slightest influence in that decision.

[CTLawGuy]

78. If every Dem in the Senate, plus Jim Jeffords

had voted against it, it would have been blocked. If 41 Dems opposed it, they could have filibustered and forced a compromise resolution.

By voting against the resolution, Kerry would have said to me, "I am fighting to stop this".

I dont care that it wouldnt be effective with kerry's efforts alone. I care that he would understand the destructive nature of voting for the resolution, and would choose to not support that destruction..

[Amarant]

87. So I take it you won't be voting in november?

If you think 1 vote out of 100 isn't important - one wonders how you feel about your one vote out of many millions. Kerrys one vote wouldn't have made a difference - well, neither will your one vote. So I guess you'll be staying home.

[JNelson6563]

51. one of the things Kerry gave Jr with that vote

was the ability to truthfully claim "a majority" in the House and Senate "supported" him with their votes on the IWR.

Everytime I heard that come outta Bush it made me sick to know it was true. I could only take comfort in those brave souls who stood up to this fascist regime when it counted, two being my own Senators, Levin and Stabenow.

Julie

[mzmolly]

52. It's also a small comfort to know that the Majority of Dems voted against.

Bush won't mention that though.

[CTLawGuy]

56. amen

good to see you posting in this thread!

[gulliver]

55. Nice post. People who criticize Kerry's IWR vote...

... simply need to realize one thing: Much as we would not like it to be the case, George W. Bush is technically the President of the United States.

Suppose a Democratic president were in the White House at the time of the IWR vote. Suppose that Democratic president started saying that good intelligence indicated a nuclear or WMD threat to this country. Suppose that Democratic president amassed troops around the "threat" country. Suppose that Democratic president said he would work through the United Nations and would seek a broad-based coalition. Should Republican Congressmen and women simply blatantly doubt that Democratic president's word and refuse to vote to authorize war if necessary?

We now know that if the hypothetical Democratic president said and did the above things, they would have done so truly and faithfully. They would have lived up to the honor of the office. But the reality was that Bush was president. Bush recklessly pursued a policy based on dubious evidence, and he even did it after we supposedly learned some lessons about intelligence from the 9/11 failures.

Both Kerry and Edwards were right to presume that Bush was not reckless with intelligence or held ulterior motives. We would want that presumption for a Democratic president. The fact that Bush as a sitting president failed to make good on a president's presumption of competence and good faith is damning only to Bush.

Kerry and Edwards did the right thing.

[CTLawGuy]

58. If Kerry thought this country was in imminent danger

however he heard about that, why would he ask bush to wait before invading? Doesn't "imminent" imply we need to invade NOW?

If Bush was promising to go through the UN, why didnt Kerry say, "come back to me when you have the UN on your side, THEN I'll give you a resolution" ?

Why did he risk letting Bush be able to invade without UN blessing?

So both excuses fail at first glance...

If Kerry thought there was an imminent threat, he would have said "Deal with it right now, invade!" He did not, he told Bush to wait. Why would you wait if there was an imminent threat to your country? My only conclusion is that Kerry did not believe there was an imminent threat.

Assuming there was no imminent threat posited by Bush, If Kerry wanted Bush to go through UN before invading, why did he allow him to be able to invade WITHOUT going through the UN? It makes no sense.

[gulliver]

59. Ask how it should work, and you will see that Kerry and ...

... Edwards did the right thing.

Kerry's determination was that the evidence for danger was significant. He was right. But Kerry also determined that the threat was not so imminent that it required immediate, UN-free, unilateral action. That could not possibly be more clear. So, once again, Kerry was right.

Kerry risked letting Bush invade without a United Nations blessing because it was (and is) the right thing to do for this country. The office of the presidency must always have the presumption of good faith and due diligence in military matters. Bush failed to live up to that presumption. That doesn't mean the presumption must go. It means Bush must go.

So Kerry and Edwards were absolutely right. They had no way of knowing that Bush was inept, was being manipulated by Chalabi, and had ulterior motives. They might have suspected it, but that doesn't overcome the presumption of honor that the presidency must have in order to function.

[CTLawGuy]

62. you are straddling, my friend

It was imminent, but not so imminent as to need immediate UN-free action??

hehe. You sound as "nuanced" as our candidate.

there are no degrees of imminency. nice try :)
Either we need to respond immediately (imminent) or we don't (not imminent). It's that simple.

I have a different philosophy of governement. Government leaders should not be trusted, especially leaders from the other party. Congress needed to make sure Bush did not give up 1000 of our human lives and countless thousand Iraqi human lives unless he had a really good reason to. That's called separation of powers and checks and balances.

[gulliver]

65. We share the same philosophy.

And it isn't mere nuance. A presumption of good faith on the part of the presidency is a structural, load-bearing necessity. A philosophy of politics that ignores reality when it gets complex is a suicidal politics. Your philosophy makes Kerry wrong when he was in fact right. Take your philophy of checks and balances a step farther and you will see that Kerry was right.

The system of checks and balances is a human process. It is full of holes. The media should have double-checked Bush. The CIA should have provided equal weight to finding evidence both for and against war. The Congress should have stood up against Bush if they could find a way.

But I think you are missing a simple fact. Our system of checks and balances was not designed to work against a dedicated adversary sitting in the White House. It presumes some level of honor and good faith, and its remedies (the voting boot, impeachment) are slow to respond. Bush simply exploited the system. Rove is a hacker.

[CTLawGuy]

66. Kerry could have

proposed and voted for a resolution only allowing Bush to go to war after the inspectors were done in Iraq, or ONLY after Bush got a UN resolution, that would have been right.

There was so much he could have done. (Last sentence removed)

[gulliver]

69. Come on.

Don't be saying things like "he thought about his career over the lives of our soldiers." IMO, that's both wrong and outrageous.

[CTLawGuy]

73. Youre right, that was unfair on my part...

but, why let bush invade without MAKING SURE THE INVASION WAS NECESSARY and JUSTIFIED? It would be more fair to say Kerry wasnt giivng our soldiers as much consideration as he should have.

Safety of human beings should be paramount. If the inspectors had been allowed to finish their work, we would have known about the non-existence of WMD, and not have had to sacrifice one life. But Bush wanted a blank check, and he got it, from a Democratic-controlled Senate no less.

[gulliver]

82. The IWR could have been a lot better.

I believe Kerry voted for what his constituents wanted. Bush demagogued the American people. He exploited the system by raising alarms, sowing discord, and forcing decisions during an election year. It was a tour de force demonstration of exactly the kind of scalawag that we don't ever need as president again.

Let's keep our focus on Bush, IMO. The whole thing is his fault from beginning to now... I say now, because we don't know when or if the catastrophic fallout from this will end. Personally, I think Bush's Iraq gambit may have created a geopolitical Chernobyl.

[Amarant]

89. I find it unlikely that

Mass - a solid blue state - had a majority of constituents that wanted Kerry to go to war.

I don't have any statistics, but I SERIOUSLY doubt the majority of Mass wanted us to invade iraq. That excuse doesn't hold up with out stats backing it up which I would like to see.

[gulliver]

96. Really? A majority of Democrats would probably still...

... agree with Kerry's position. And a sizable minority of Republicans would too. No one said that anyone "wanted to go to war" as you put. That's your formulation.

Kerry didn't want to go to war, and he also didn't want to refuse to go to war if one proved necessary. That's the correct position and it is Kerry's. Bush wanted to go to war whether it was strictly necessary or not -- at least that is where the evidence seems to point.

No, I don't have stats. But I remember that the majority of Americans were behind Bush in his efforts thanks to Bush's demagoguery and carelessness with the facts.

But let me ask you. Why would Kerry vote "for the war" as you would (inaccurately) put it? Because he likes war? Because he likes going against his own "blue state" constituents?

No. What actually happened is that he voted for what people were saying they wanted, and he did not vote for war.

The war, it's messy aftermath, and our ongoing expensive quagmire are all 100% Bush's fault. Kerry did the right thing.

Bush is a scalawag. If we are lucky, we will never have another president like him again.

[blm]

57. A few of us put those words up hundreds of time last year.

They were ignored or attacked as bullshit rhetoric.

Thanks for reposting them. Hopefully more people will appreciate his integrity as you do.

[mzmolly]

61. I probably read his words last year, and may have even dismissed them.

But today I am trying to understand his thought process on the war vote as he will hopefully be our next President.

[CTLawGuy]

64. here's his thought process

"I am from the same state as Michael Dukakis, and they called him a Massachusetts liberal, and he lost. If I vote for IWR, I will look tough and the DLC will call me "electable" and get behind me."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Your ability to read minds is non-existant.

Your arguments are wholly based on what you say is in the future, and what you say other people are thinking.


In other words, totally worthless. Based on your imagination, not on reality.

[CTLawGuy]

79. come on

why would Kennedy and Kerry come to different conclusions? They are both from a liberal state, they are both reasonably liberal. They both served in the military. They're both Catholic. They both saw the same evidence.


What is the major difference that would cause divergent conclusions?

One is running for president, and the other is not....

Unless you have another explanation... Maybe Kennedy doesn't care about our safety :eyes: ?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. I am willing

to read Kerry's speech on casting the vote and say that those are his reasons for casting the vote. You are saying that you know that he actually had different reasons than the ones he expressed based apparently on nothing but the presumption that he has no integrity whatsoever.

So yes my explanation for Kerry's vote is the explanation Kerry gave when he voted:

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. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.

American success in the Persian Gulf War was enhanced by the creation of a multinational coalition. Our coalition partners -- I'd add -- picked up the overwhelming burden of the costs of that war. It is imperative that the Administration continue to work to multilateralize its current effort against Iraq. If the Administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense inspection regime, or if necessary through the use of force. The United States without question has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally, but we need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, and overflight rights from allies in the region. That support will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power to stop the United States from doing what it must to protect its citizens, but it is in our interests to act with our allies if that is at all possible - and it should be: the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands is not ours alone.

If we do go to war with Iraq, we have an obligation to the Iraqi people, and to other nations in the region, to help create an Iraq that is a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long-term, costly and not without difficulties given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the Administration has given more lip-service than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot let that happen in Iraq. We have to be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes and to commit the necessary financial and technical resources, which could amount to billions, to succeed. The challenge is great: an Administration which made nation-building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan if it intends to meet it. The President needs to give the American people a fuller and clearer understanding of the magnitude and the long-term financial costs of this effort. The international community's support is critical, because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. In the final analysis we will need the commitment of others, particularly nations in the region, to achieve this task.

It is clear the Senate will give the President the authority he has requested to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: he can continue to defy the international community or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to the brink of confrontation - and he is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power.

By standing with the President, Congress will demonstrate that our nation is united in its determination to take away Saddam Hussein's deadly arsenal, by peaceful means if we can, by force if we must. We are affirming a President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe, and the President must take that grant of responsibility seriously. One of the lessons I learned fighting in a very different war at a very different time is that we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I know what it means to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That's why I believe so strongly that before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people need to know why -- they need to know we've put our country in a position of ultimate strength -- and that we had no options short of war to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate. I believe the work we've begun in the Senate - by offering questions not blind acquiescence -- has helped put our nation on a responsible course. It's succeeded in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable and put the Administration on notice for how he is held accountable. And it is through constant questioning that we will stay that course. That is a course that will defend our troops and protect our national security -- it won't be easy, it will require that we exercise skillful, smart diplomacy and reserve the right to act militarily - but that is nothing new. It is the challenge President Kennedy faced in the difficult days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, after which he told us: "The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are…. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission." So we shall not submit or surrender - and if we do our job in the best traditions of our country, the world will win.
-- Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq, Oct. 9, 2002

[CTLawGuy]

90. fine,

you believe that if you want, and Ill believe what i want.

[mzmolly]

77. Could be partly true.

But most politicians running for higher office consider his/her actions and the potential impact it may have on an election. :shrug:

I've often thought how un-characteristic his vote on this war was compared to the rest of his record in office.

For example he voted against the first Gulf War, and had that not happened, we wouldn't have had Gulf War 2 so???

[Amarant]

84. I don't think

there is any question that he voted to "disarm iraq".

The PROBLEM is half the bloody world KNEW there was nothing to "disarm" to begin with. The problem is Bush is a KNOWN liar yet he was (supposedly) believed.

But yea - who would imagine the guy who stole the election would lie?

[mzmolly]

93. Actually 80% of Americans believed Saddam had WMD at the time of

"the big lie".

I remember being totally baffled. But, I think the Senate lives in a bubble and may not be likely to read Truthout etc.?? Most hard lefties know NOT to rely on the major media for the facts. I know if I depended on mainstream media, I may have believed the big lie too. This is one reason I like the fact that Moore goes after the media in his new movie. They really are partly responsible, as is everyone who authorized the war. But, Bush is the ultimate person responsible, and thus he must go.

[Pastiche423]

86. kerry voted for it

And in his very own words...

“Stop crying in your teacups. It isn’t going to change. Get over it.”
January 2004

[mzmolly]

92. The Teacups quote was made shortly after the 2000 stolen election.

I am having trouble figuring out how it relates to this thread?

:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

94. I am not surprised

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

95. Not surprised at what?

???