Why does no one seem to understand..............

[TheDebbieDee]

why John Kerry has stated that, knowing what he knows now, he still would've supported the war in Iraq. He's getting flack from the Republicans, the Democrats and the media pundits over this statement.

I believe that Kerry made this statement so that when he wins the election in November, he won't have to deal with 120,000 demoralized American soldiers who will know that their President doesn't really want them fighting this war.

Kerry is doing what he can to facilitate his acceptance by the military as the new Commander-in-Chief as easy as possible. I also believe that this is the reason why there were several, ranking, retired military officers on-stage at the DNC. Kerry played up his support by former military officers during and after the convention to allay any fears the military might have about accepting a new President.

I hope that current active-duty military personnel are paying attention to the fact, so far, that the Republican Convention has not yet produced a prominent, former military senior officer (other than those involved in the Iraq planning) who is supporting the re-election of George W. Bush.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[kikiek]

1. Excellent point of view. Hadn't thought of that. Of course that is vital.

[mmonk]

2. Truth is my vanguard

and without truth, what's false cannot be revealed.

[slor]

3. Never thought about that...

and I think it is a very insightful argument. Get it to the Kerry campaign desk!

[mbali]

35. They already know it - it's part of the reason he's saying what he is...

n/t

[MercutioATC]

4. Hell, even I have problems with that statement, and I'm voting for him.

I understand why he said it, but it was possibly the dumbest thing he could have said. If you want to bitch about a war, you don't say that even knowing what you know now you'd still vote to give the President approval to wage it.

[EstimatedProphet]

5. What people really don't understand

is that Kerry didn't say he supported the war, he said he supported the war RESOLUTION, which is not the same thing.
The war resoultion stated that the President had authorization to go to war if all other options were exhausted. I was against the war, and I would have supported that. The problem comes in when President I-Need-To-Prove-I'm-A-Man invaded without even trying to use any other options. IWR wasn't a blank check.

[brook]

8. You hit the nail on the head.

Problem is exactly that many people don't understand the difference between the resolution and a blank check. It needs to be explained - and repeatedly, imo. Kerry needs to keep in mind that there's a large segment of the population that have no ability or inclination to dig further than a glib headline or sound bite to reach their 'informed opinion'.

[Cheswick2.0]

31. People don't understand...THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT

It is the responsibility of the candidate to win the campaign. If people DON'T UNDERSTAND that is his fault. He has to make sure they do or change what he is saying or how he is saying it. If he doesn't win in November it is not the fault of the people who don't understand. It is the fault of the candidate and his staff.

[aquart]

79. Forgive me, but a blank check is exactly what it was.

What it was meant to be is irrelevant. It wasn't written to protect us from a dishonorable leader. And for them to pretend they didn't know that's exactly what George is.......? Please.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

26. ding ding ding!

i wish the media could delve into the details of this stuff. it is not like it is that complicated to explain.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. be realistic, understand how it works...you can wish all you want

however the campaign has the responsility to "expalin" if the media is not doing it's job.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. Insane nuance

and that is why he is taking a hit in the polls. You can tweek and twist what he said and defend it an all it's ambiguous glory. That doesn''t change the fact that it was a lousy anwer. People don't get it. They don't believe him and they think he is incapable of giving a clear answer to anything. He gave a HORRIBLE answer to that question and he should FIRE the person responsible for that idiotic bit of thinking. If he is the one responsible he might think about firing himself and hiring someone to think for him.

He thinks "that is the kind of authority a president should have"? That's an even WORSE answer.

[Zhade]

82. Oh, I think you're not giving some people credit.

They get it, alright. They understand, from KERRY'S OWN WORDS, that he would have gone to war.

Look at the newest comment - that he'd have let inspections continue so as to get more countries on our side. Well, knowing now that there was no threat to us whatsoever, what would those gathered countries have done?

The right answer: not invade a country that posed us no threat. Why would countries have "come to our side" while the inspections process continued to reveal there was no threat?

Why did Kerry make this odd comment?

[farmbo]

6. Rove had a $50 million media buy lined up... against Saddam Hussein

...and that's why he tried to trick Kerry in to opposing the invasion under any grounds.

Rove wants-- desperately-- to run the ads he thought he was going to run against Howard Dean... Ads showing mass graves, rape rooms, and tortured Olympians... with the tag: "If John Kerry had his way, Saddam and Uday would still be in power."

Kerry made the right statement.

He can now control the debate on Iraq for the next two months.

[Jokinomx]

7. Very good point.... I will add this also....

Kerry's base of supporters will vote for him even if he makes statements like this. By appealling to even the smallest fraction of undecideds by leaning towards "It was right to take Saddam out" he will pick up a percentage or two of the vote that otherwise would go somewhere else.

:dem:

[MoonRiver]

22. And, the military vote. eom

[MadHound]

9. So instead he is demoralizing them in another way

By pounding home the point that no matter who wins the election, they are still going to be bleeding and dying in an illegal, immoral, senseless, and ultimately unwinnable war. Now that my friend is truly demoralizing.

[MrBenchley]

11. I doubt he's demoralizing anyone but Republicans...

It must be driving them nuts to be unable to attack Kerry over Iraq.

[MadHound]

14. Yet we are still left with two candidates,

Both of whom are promising to continue this illegal, immoral invasion. The troops know there is no good reason for us to be there, most Americans know the same. Yet stay we will, no matter who wins in November.

Yes my friend, that is quite demoralizing, both for the troops who wonder what they're fighting and dying for, and for the majority of people at home, who wonder why we're there.

[Nancy Waterman]

25. Kerry isn't inching toward war with Iran and Syria

Comments by GOPers in the past month show they are thinking of making Iran the next big enemy. The neocons are chafing at the bit for another war and regime change in Iran. Kerry will be more likely to find a way to get us out of there and to accept an Islamic government there if it has some moderate features (Sistani?). Bushco's attitude is that Iraq can have democracy if they don't vote for an Islamic government. Some democracy.

I also think that Kerry can't just say the war was wrong with soldiers over there. iI is too demoralizing for them. They have to have some purpose for being there even if it is to just bring some measure of stability before they get out.

[MadHound]

28. Please friend, the soldiers already realized long ago

That there is no good reason for them to be in Iraq. Kerry could have really set himself apart, and garnered a lot more support, by having a timetable and a plan for getting us the hell out of there. Instead, he responds with calls for more troops, and vague promises that he will have "a large portion" of the troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. HIS FIRST TERM??!! You don't think that isn't demoralizing to the troops? The realization that no matter who wins, they are going to lose. That my friend is demoralizing.

Yes I realize that there is a statistically significantly greater likelihood that we'll be going into Iran or Syria, or both, if Bush wins. That is one of two reasons I'm voting for Kerry. But still and all it is quite demoralizing to both the troops, and the anti-war people around the country who support them, to know that no matter who wins, the illegal, immoral war in Iraq will continue.

[mbali]

37. You're right - how can a man who so eloquently asked,

"how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake," stand up in the middle of the Iraq mess, with troops still in harm's way, and proclaim that it was a mistake to vote for the resolution?

[MadHound]

38. By standing up and eloquently restating his classic question again

And then state that yes, the war in Iraq was and is a mistake, and this is how I'm going to get us out of there. It is no shame to admit when you're wrong, everybody is. And it isn't like this news will demoralize the troops any more, they're over in Iraq, they already know that this is a FUBAR war. What demoralizes them the most my friend is realizing that no matter who wins, there is no exit plan for getting them home.

[BootinUp]

40. So it was wrong to push for UN inspectors?

And invasion if WMD was found?

[MadHound]

43. There was no need to pass the IWR to get the inspectors in Iraq

Saddam had already agreed to let them back in. At the time of the IWR vote, discussion on the details were already underway. And our intelligence community had already pretty much written off WMD all the way back in '98. The CIA even published a report in '98 stating with confidence that there were no WMD. And quite frankly, even if there were WMD, that was still not a valid excuse to invade the country. After all, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea among many others have WMD, yet we haven't invaded them, and in fact are allies with some.

Iraq was no threat to us, either then or now. Tens of millions of people, both in the US and abroad, knew that. Yet somehow our Senators and Congressmen couldn't figure that out?:eyes: Sorry, I don't buy that arguement.

This is an illegal, immoral war my friend, we know that now, and it was known at the time. Yet Bush, Kerry and many others decided to get their hands bloody, either for profits or politics. Not a good thing at all, and all around demoralizing.

[BootinUp]

45. Ranking threats is not that simple and Iran doesn't have nukes yet.

Because of Iraq's location and history, if they did have WMD or were very close to nukes or could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, they would have been a major threat. They are not on a Peninsula where we can practically surround them, they are not in a face off with a nuclear club member (Pakistan and India). It was a different tactical threat. Plus it was the ME of course.

The intelligence was murky, almost everyone agrees it was not enough to invade on now except Bush that is. (BTW thats how we should be differentiating from him, he says he would still invade even if we knew what know now.

Bushes justification as I recall for actually going in, was that Sadaam wouldn't (or couldn't) prove the weapons didn't still exist. Why did we dems let them get away with that? It should have been find them first.

But there was enough concern to authorize action should it be necessary. You want to tie the Presidents hands, well congress can't do that anyways even if Kerry and every other democrat agreed with you. Especially since they didn't have a majority.

[MadHound]

48. Not ranking threats friend, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Many other "rogue" countries have WMD, we know that, yet we haven't invaded them. It was also known at the time that Iraq was no real threat. First off, there were substansive reports that they had no WMD, and that ANY launch capability they had was limited to a 150 mile radius, barely outside their own borders.

The rationale that the IWR was to force inspectors in is flawed also, since Iraq was already negotiating terms for letting the inspectors back in before the vote took place.

Sorry, but there was no logical reason, given what we knew at the time, for going into Iraq. But Kerry and the other spineless Dems went along to get along. I agree, even with every Dem voting against the IWR, they wouldn't have stopped it's passing. But there are procedural moves they could have used, such as a filibuster, to block this from happening, and of course the old, but still powerful, power of the bully pulpit. Something, anything except rolling over. But no, they opted for political expediancy instead, and the blood of innocents are on their hands.

[BootinUp]

55. Appreciate the civil debate

I am just pointing out that foreign policy is complicated. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there is no way they would have gotten a filibuster (60 votes) and they lost the public debate on IWR. It was debated, an alternative resolution was offered but did not get enough support.

The intention of the IWR was to force 100% compliance for inspections, there shouldn't be any debate about that it is a fact.

War powers are also rather tricky, the President can position troops and authorize military action whenever he chooses according to our consitution. The dems would have eventually been in the same position as they are today... troops in battle and having to withhold funding as the only recourse. Again they would have lost any effort to do so.

As to other rogue nations with WMD, I didn't see any nations in your list that are prime targets for an invasion. There are better ways of dealing with North Korea (we have other options). And the risk to our forces and those of neighboring countries would be much greater since they probably have working nukes already.

The situation with Iraq was stopping their possible nuke program, and eliminating chem and bio weapons. Nobody believed they had nukes ready to use. There were certainly questions as to how close they were. Iraq was not fully cooperating per treaties and UN resolutions. There was a case for increased pressure and inspections as I said. Just going along with the status quo was not going to cut it.

[MadHound]

60. Going along with the status quo for ten plus years was already cutting it

I mean after all, in that time period, the US had destroyed the Iraq infrastructure, had multiple spy satellites in place at all times, and had killed 500,000 innocent Iraqis with our embargoes and thrice weekly bombings. Iraq was flat on its back, had been for years, and most intelligent thinking people realized that they were no threat whatsoever. The CIA had published reports to that effect, and Saddam was in negotiations at the time of the vote to allow inspectors back in for full inspections. The only real sticking point is his distrust of US inspectors, and that was because indeed the UNSCOM mission back in '98 was used as cover for spy activities carried out by American agents.

And the intent of the IWR was to give Bush the Congressional backing he needed to launch war. To fall for the old ploy of forcing compliance is ludicrous. Several Congressmen, including Byrd and Kucinich didn't fall for it, and even upon cursory reading you can see that the IWR has holes in it big enough for Bush to drive the tanks and the rest of his war through.

And you don't need sixty votes to start a filibuster, just sixty votes to stop it. The Dems had enough manpower to keep a filibuster going, and kill the IWR with procedural manuevers, yet instead a great many simply rolled over, Kerry included.

[BootinUp]

66. Of course thats right on the filibuster

but you're wrong if you think the dems rolled over for political expediency. They believed they were doing the right thing, a great majority of them anyways. Just as Kucinich and Byrd believed they were.

War is always an emotional issue. Judgements and facts are clouded. The nation was being told by the President that we had to do this IWR and go to the UN based on the intelligence he had directly from the CIA director. This was not long after there was an attack on our soil. In that case most humans are going to go with the guy in the oval office pounding the war drum. Its the nature of things.

Yes Iraq was in worse shape than we were told, who knew that? who had the undeniable facts? No one. It was analysis and speculation. And different analysts called it differently.

[Zhade]

88. It wasn't "speculation".

TWO high-ranking U.N. staff resigned over the use of sanctions that one of them termed "genocide".

The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi kids, as responded to by Madeline Albright as "a price worth paying" wasn't "speculation".

Powell himself saying, in 2001, that Hussein did not have massive amounts of threatening WMD wasn't "speculation".

These are all facts that you seem to have forgotten about in your attempt to analyze away Kerry's pro-IWR vote.

[Zhade]

85. The intent of the IWR - for b*shco - was war. Period.

There are DUers here who knew, when b*sh stole the WH, that he'd try to go into Iraq. Why? They knew of the PNACers who planned it and counseled b*sh since before he stole power.

Yet Congress can't figure out that a liar and a thief was lying? Please. That insults their intelligence, and mine.

If I knew - and I did - that there was no threat, they knew. Or else they're really dim bulbs, and I seriously doubt that.

Kerry helped investigate Iran-Contra, but couldn't figure out that Elliot Abrams, on the NSC, a convicted-then-pardoned criminal, wasn't pushing lies? BULLSHIT. Kerry knew better.

He should apologize for his IWR vote, so we can all move on and address the damage he partially helped create by getting b*sh into prison.

[BootinUp]

91. Whats your definition of knowing?

I think we are talking about your opinion right?

I mean you simply didn't have access to the necessary information to know that which you say. And I would ask what are your credentials to make such a claim and be taken at face value.

[Zhade]

93. No, we are not talking about my opinion.

I knew about Hussein Kamel telling interrogators that the weapons had existed, but had been destroyed. Yet only the former was discussed in the press.

I knew about Powell's and Rice's own comments that Hussein was no threat.

I knew about PNAC, and their desire to go to war in Iraq prior to b*sh getting into office.

I knew about the CIA's real-time doubts about the intelligence that was discussed right here on DU.

I knew about Scott Ritter's work, and his informed analysis that 95% of Hussein's chemical and biological weapons were either destroyed or past their shelf life.

I knew that Hussein had no credible ties to either 9/11 or al Qaeda.

I knew that a number of Iran-Contra criminals were fomenting foreign ME policy in collusion with the Office of Special Plans.

I mean, damn, you had to know all this, right? It was all discussed right here at DU, before the IWR vote. I don't need credentials to be able to read experts, see the real-time debunking of b*shco's WMD lies, and realize that there was no real threat there. If I could see it, you could see it. That's how thin the propaganda coming out of the WH really was.

Are you telling me you DIDN'T realize b*sh and crew were lying to us?

[BootinUp]

96. Well some of these stories

Scott Ritter, PNAC, and OSP did not get aired where I was looking before the war. I didn't start really investigating until a few weeks after the war started. Before that I had another life that was keeping me busy. I did know that Bush was exagerating intelligence, but I relied on the sources I knew of to offset that.

Even now when you read the findings of the intelligence commission, it is clear that we did not have enough good solid intelligence either way. I would have supported the IWR to get better intelligence.

The problem is Americans want to trust their President and we do not have one we can trust, but after 9/11 some of those fears were alleviated for many democrats because we are the party that wants to work together with the other side on foreign policy. It was a mistake to trust him, I think Kerry has said that in so many words.

[Zhade]

97. Where do you think I got the info, the media?

HAHAHA! Seriously - I did what everyone else here does, I went online to find the info, which was widely available prior to the IWR.

Not knowing it beforehand doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. Now you know, and so I assume you can more readily understand how it is I knew that Iraq was no threat to us before the IWR vote and after.

Kerry should never have trusted b*sh. He helped investigate Poppy's crimes, and b*sh has lots of Poppy's guys around, yet Kerry doesn't realize that b*sh was - at best - getting bad advice from known criminals? Throw in the fact that b*sh stole the WH, and it makes my jaw drop to think Kerry could have been stupid enough to trust b*sh.

Kerry's not stupid.

Of course, there's the whole issue of Congress giving away its war-making powers to the office of the president. Not only is that stupid, but like the War Powers Act, it's unConstituitional.

And I do hope you realize the "intelligence commission" is a partisan joke.

[BootinUp]

98. The internet is great for information

I use it everday now. And I was thrilled to find DU a year ago. But if stories don't make the major media, you still have so many people that don't hear it. And you may not be getting both sides (all sides) of the story. So while I agree that there was some evidence backing you up, I still don't think you can call it fact (no WMD in Iraq), not back in Oct of 2002 anyways.

cheers

[Zhade]

100. Ah, but the issue was a THREAT, not the mere existence of WMD.

There was no credible evidence of a threat at that time, based on (among other things) the evidence I cited to the contrary.

Their job was to prove a threat. It wasn't my job to disprove one. They lied, it was debunked in real time here on DU and elsewhere.

There never was a threat. And millions of us knew that before the IWR vote.

[eridani]

84. This "WMD to terrorists" is just absolute horseshit

Even if he somehow got back all he had in the 80s (and he never gave any of it to any Islamic fundies then anyway), that would still be a tiny fraction of what is in Russia and the other ex-Soviet states, guarded by rusty bicycle locks and people who don't get paid very often. The Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Initiative is supposed to pay for helping them to get some control over this material, and Shitstain Psychopath in Chief SLASHED THE GODDAM FUNDING for it! That's the real WMD security issue, and has been all along, not Iraq.

[BootinUp]

47. Also your characterizations are wrong

Sadaam would not have allowed full unlimited inspections without the real threat of invasion. This is the widely accepted view at least. And having WMD would have been in violation of the treaty from the first Gulf War, so lets at least agree on that.

[MadHound]

49. Saddam was already in discussions with the UN,

And yes, he was talking about full unlimited inspections. His only real sticking point was that he didn't want any Americans, because he was afraid, justifiably so, that any Americans would spy on him, as we did in '98.

And yes, I agree, his having WMD would have been a violation. But he didn't have any, and according to the CIA, hadn't had any since the first Gulf War.

Sorry, but these excuses against him were cooked up, made up excuses to steal Iraqi oil and make big bucks while doing so. Most people at the time saw through the BS, wanting inspectors to complete their job before we even decided on whether or not to invade. Yet Kerry and the other spineless Dems decided to dip their hands in the blood of innocent for the sake of political expediancy.

[BootinUp]

57. So we will disagree

on how cooperative Sadaam was to inspections. We will disagree on what exactly our combined intelligence agencies and UN inpectors said about presence of WMD and how far they were in developing nukes. And we will disagree on why Kerry voted for the IWR.

[MadHound]

59. Look friend, go check this out for yourself

Go read the transcipts of the Saddam negotiations regarding inspections. Go read the CIA reports, especially that one from '98. Go read the IAEA reports stating that Iraq had NO nukes or nuke programs. Then get back to me on why Kerry voted for the war.

[BootinUp]

62. I don't think thats really necessary.

I paid very close attention since the attack on the WTC to reports from both the UN and our own intelligence. If you are saying there was no conflicting reports, that everyone should have been 100% confident then again we will disagree.

Clearly there was not enough intelligence of WMD to justify invasion. Please don't misunderstand me.

We had very little intelligence since '98. It had been 4+ years. It was time to refresh the intel.

P.S. Will you allow me to not take Sadaam at his word regarding the negotiations? History does not show him to have been trustworthy on negotiations.

[Zhade]

89. The widely-accepted view in America is that Columbus discovered America.

Please, let's not confuse "conventional wisdom" with reality.

[mbali]

41. He doesn't think he was wrong

The mistake here was not in voting for the resolution. The mistake was made by the Administration - likely knowingly.

Kerry is right not to fall into the trap set by Bush/Rove - who engineered the resolution to generate exactly the kind of turmoil within our part that we see here. It was all done just for the purpose of tripping up the Democratic nominee, whoever it was:

1. If he voted NO, and the war went well, he would have be bashed mercilessly for the past two years for being un-American, non-supportive of the Commander-in-Chief, soft on terrorism, soft on Saddam, etc., etc. And Bush would have gone in anyway. If things went well, he would have been portrayed as out-of-touch and irrelevant and just plain wrong. If things went badly, Bush would have blamed HIM for the failure, claiming that his failure to provide the support he needed tied his hands and made success impossible.

2. If he voted YES and the war went well, Bush would have given him no credit whatsoever.

3. If he voted YES and the war went badly - the current scenario - they planned to say, "Why are YOU bitching about it? You voted for it, too!"

Kerry has been too smart to fall into the trap and has, so far, finessed it. Unfortunately, too many of us are going for the okey-doke.

[MadHound]

44. So you're saying that from a political standpoint,

Kerry's vote and stance since then is a good thing? Sorry, I don't buy that. First off, you don't play politics with people's lives, which is what Kerry knowingly did. He isn't the only one who did this, but he is the only one running for the Presidency, and is using his IWR vote for political gain.

Second, whatever happened to our form of represenative democracy as laid out in the Constitution? Kerry failed in his primary job duty, ie representing the will of his constituents. How trustworthy is he then, if he fails in this most basic of tasks?

Sorry, but Kerry isn't finessing anything on this issue. He is by all appearances and actions he is simply another warmonger, albeit a kinder, gentler one:eyes: Quite frankly, the only real positive the man has going for him is that he isn't Bush, but he had better watch it, for if he moves much more to the right, he will surpass Bush.

[mbali]

46. I'm saying that Kerry does not believe he made a mistake in voting for IWR

and that he shouldn't say otherwise even though that would provide him a short-term political pass.

He cannot in good conscience say that he believes it was a mistake if he doesn't, but the fact that he doesn't think his vote was a mistake does not mean that he believes that Bush is right. THAT'S what I mean by finessing.

As for your representative democracy argument, the Constitution does not require that Senators and Members take a poll of their constituents and then always vote as a majority of them wish him to. He was elected to use his best judgment, and that's what he did. Moreover, do you know that a majority of his constituents were opposed to the IWR at the time?

[MadHound]

50. Of course Kerry doesn't think his vote was a mistake

At least he isn't going to say that, after all, his IWR vote was one of political calculation, and he can't very well be public about that.

And you're correct, there is nothing explicit in the Constitution stating that a rep HAS to vote the way his constituents wish. However that has always been an implicit statement, and in our form of government, the standard way to operate, going back as far as the Greeks. And yes, I do know that his constituents were against the IWR, messages to Congressional reps was running 280-1 against the IWR, and all major polls showed that the people wished to wait on the inspectors findings before anything was voted on. Yes, I'm extrapolating these general findings into conclusions for Mass. in particular, but somehow I think they're valid unless Mass. got a sudden inflow of freepers right before the IWR vote, and somehow, I don't think that happened.

[mbali]

53. Where did you get your information that messages were 280-1 against

the resolution?

And why do you assume that Kerry's vote was one of political calculation? Why is so hard to believe that Kerry believed that a yes vote was the right thing to do?

[MadHound]

58. It was being reported in real time here on DU

And here are a couple of links to back up that assertion. <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/CarteBlanche_CongressBush.html>
<http://www.everyvotematters.com/peace/iraq.html>

I also saw this figure in a publication by my local peace group, sad to say though, it isn't on the web.

And the reason that I believe that this was a politically motivated vote by Kerry is because of his record. He formed VVAW, he voted against the first Iraq war, and yet on the eve of his run for office(when he already had decided whether or not he was going to run), he comes out for what was an obviously illegal, immoral pre-emptive invasion. Hell, even a blind pig can see that one friend.

[mbali]

65. Sorry, but these cites don't support a claim of 280-1 opposition to IWR

"Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority — in some cases up to 99 percent — of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office reported a majority called backing the war."

There are 435 offices in the House and Senate. This small sampling, without any real numbers, just doesn't say what you're claiming.

But, nevertheless, I just don't agree that, by voting for the resolution, Kerry either was being purely political or that he was as out of step with his constituents as you claim. Five of the 12 Senators and Members from Massachusetts (including Kerry) voted for the resolution, while the other seven voted against. This was hardly a slam-dunk either way.

[MrBenchley]

54. Well, exactly....

Nor is it a viable alternative NOW to just pull the troops out and say "sorry, only the losing side in the election thought you were there for any reason..."

Clearly the situation in Iraq has to be stabilized somehow with the help of an international coalition and the UN...otherwise a bad situation becomes infinitely more dangerous.

[no name no slogan]

75. Who says it isn't?

to paraphrase historian Howard Zinn, how dare WE think that the only thing keeping Iraq together is our presence?

If the events of the past two weeks have proven anything, they have proved that it is the US that is the destabilizing factor in Iraq, and that the Iraqi people are quite capable of handling their own affairs on their own.

Why should WE be the ones to rebuild their country-- especially when we're rebuilding it to OUR specifications, and not to theirs? Iraq has an unemployment rate of around 80% right now, yet we keep sending American workers over there to do the job. Iraq has one of the most literate, educated populations in the entire Middle East, and they enjoyed a very high standard of living before Desert Storm.

There are a number of Iraqis and Iraqi exiles who are very capable of rebuilding Iraq-- and will probably do it for a hell of a lot less than the $$$ we're paying Haliburton and Bechtel, too. And it will be done the way the IRAQIS want it done, too.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is little more than corporate welfare right now, with much of our tax money going to fatten up the big corporations. Set up free and fair elections, and turn the money (and the administration) over to the Iraqis. GET RID OF THE OCCUPYING ARMY. Turn over security to international troops, LED BY THE UN (NOT the US). Then watch things miraculously "stabilize".

Our troops cause more harm than good in Iraq now, and the people know it. The sooner we get out, the sooner Iraq stabilizes. Give them the money to rebuild, and let THEM decide how to do it-- NOT Dubya, Cheney, or Haliburton.

It is the only way left to "win" this "war".

[MrBenchley]

52. "Yes my friend, that is quite demoralizing"

So let's pretend that the guy who has actually been to war and might know what he's doing is no better than the imbecile who doesn't....

[MadHound]

56. Better than pretending that a man who voted for the IWR,

And later reiterated his support for this illegal, immoral war is actually going to bring about peace in the ME. Look friend, you can blinder yourself on this issue all you wish, but the truth of the matter is that Kerry supported this war initially, and still does, mostly out of political expediancy. Thus we are left with the choice of voting for one of two warmongers. Kerry's only saving grace, and one of two reasons I'm voting for the man, is that he is less likely to send us into Iran or Syria. But he has yet to state that he has any exit plan, in fact just the opposite, he is going to bring up more troops. This has the markings of LBJ all over it, and we all know how well that worked out:eyes:

[Zhade]

83. This deserves an enhancement...

So instead he is demoralizing them in another way...By pounding home the point that no matter who wins the election, they are still going to be bleeding and dying in an illegal, immoral, senseless, and ultimately unwinnable war. Now that my friend is truly demoralizing.

And when you consider how much of the military has seen through the lies and does not want to fight anymore - it makes me realize what it must have been like during Viet Nam under both Dems and Repubs.

Madness. These poor soldiers are being shafted everywhere by people claiming to support them.

If you truly support the troops, people, you'll want them home. NOW.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Phew!! That's some spin on a really dumb statement.

What does Kerry know now?

1. Bush went to war despite the so-called provisions of the IWR.
2. The invasion and occupation has cost thousands of lives.
3. The occupation continues with still more lives being lost.
4. There is no way out of the quagmire.
5. The majority of Democrats opposed the invasion and occupation.

He says that he would still vote for the war.

Conclusion: He made a really dumb statement. Or, he is as dumb as Bush.

I'm hoping that the former is the case.

[MoonRiver]

23. Correction: He would still vote for the RESOLUTION.

That is a crucial difference. Kerry has made it very clear that had he been president there would have been no unilateral invasion of Iraq, and it would have only been done, multilaterally, as an absolutely LAST option.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Uhhh..he wasn't president when he voted for it.

And, he isn't president now. He said, knowing what he knows now he would still have voted for it.

[Zhade]

92. Ah, but that's not how it works out.

He said he'd have voted for the authorization, because it's "right for the president to have that authority".

Considering that the only way you can read his statement is that he would have voted to give B*SH authority (since b*sh, not Kerry, was president at the time of the IWR vote), then that begs the question: if he knows that b*sh failed to meet the IWR's requirements to go to war - as so many argue Kerry voted for instead of war - then WHY IN HELL WOULD HE GIVE B*SH AUTHORITY AGAIN?

He now knows that b*sh abused that authority (which he never should have had anyway)! So why would Kerry give him that authority to abuse all over again?

[seabeyond]

12. very good point deb

that is interesting and why wouldnt he. absolutely. adn if anyone would know how to embrace and understand the soldier in battle would be kerry

this is why on this i give it to kerry adn dont even try to think i know more. female, no life of battle, no people in my life in battle, who am i to think i have a clue

very good. thanks for sharing

[CWebster]

13. Except, why would US soldiers who are trapped in Iraq,

and know the score, and want to come home, be demoralized by a new commander in chief who wants to bring them home?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Well, who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?

A lot of those soldiers' friends came home posthumously.
Kerry did the right thing for morale there now, and he did the right thing by way of giving the president unencumbered authority to act HONORABLY, which Bush did not.

[CWebster]

18. Sort of like how Chamberlain

expected honor from Hitler?

[unfrigginreal]

16. It has nothing to do with understanding his intent...

and everything to do with the political stupidity of the statement.

That statement was even more damaging than all of the swift boat liar charges. Kerry effectively wiped out all the gains made by himself and surrogates by claiming that Bush misled us into war. He pretty much took it off the table. Huge mistake that could have been avoided with a better answer than "I'd do it again".

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. No No No. Kerry went back to that point in time

where his vote was a formality to allowing the president to act with a mandate. It wasn't about "do you trust Bush?" It was all about acting with authority, and giving the president authority.
The vote did not mean war was the only result.

[unfrigginreal]

24. Quit bullshitting yourself NYM

It matters a hell of a lot more how the average Jane and Joe interpret his remarks than how us activists interpret them. The campaign had been very effective with the Bush mislead us theme, but based on his statement average J/J now feel that he's changed his mind AGAIN. Not very helpful when the other guy is bashing you for being indecisive.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Because the 'Saddam was bad' meme still holds true for the majority

Geez, even Clinton said this, and I notice he was a pretty popular president. Pretty smart guy too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x710691#710698

[unfrigginreal]

33. The war "wasn't worth it" is now the majority opinion...

not exactly the best time to appear as though your embracing the action.

[mbali]

39. Kerry also knows that voting against the resolution would not have stopped

Bush from going in if he wanted. But there was a chance that the resolution would force him to pursue diplomatic options.

[incapsulated]

20. I have to agree

I would love to accept this spin, but it doesn't wash. It just seemed to me that Kerry, who has been in an awkward position on the war because he is being called a flip-flopper by the rethugs over the IWAR vote, just fucked up, period. Whatever he was trying to say, it came out all wrong. He should have never answered a hypothetical question, put to him by Bush of all people, through the media, to begin with. He would have been in a better position on Iraq now if he just admitted to making a mistake with that vote, which most Americans would accept, I think, since so many of them feel duped. Well, it's water under the bridge now, he is going to have to do a lot of tappdancing on Iraq because of his yes/no stance. That's his own fault, it could have, and should have been the issue that he could hammer Bush into the ground with.

[BootinUp]

36. Not really

I don't believe that most Americans want all the Senators and Congressman to take back their IWR vote. They wanted us to get UN support for inspections and for getting tougher on Sadaam and drawing a line. Even Clark supported that goal, he said we gave too much authority to Bush with that one vote, and that is true from our point of view, but not necessarily to the majority. The majority does not want the Presidents hands tied when it comes to National Security.

I don't understand what is so hard about explaining that the IWR vote was about inspections first, and war only if evidence was found, well it wasn't. It was Bush that turned that into "prove they don't exist or we are coming in."

[Crunchy Frog]

80. I agree with you Jim, but

I do think that Kerry could have made the explanation much more clear than he did. He should have clearly stated that it was a vote for diplomacy and inspections with the use of force to back it up, only if these other options had been exhausted.

He could then clearly state that Bush should not have invaded Iraq, given the circumstances, and still have that position be consistent with his vote.

As it is, unfortunately, his message does tend to be rather muddled on this issue and I don't think it needs to be. That weakens his hand in going after Bush, and makes it easier for his opponents to paint him as an indicisive flip-flopper.

[BootinUp]

81. Quite right - the talking points need some work

But I don't think its too late, or that the issue has been given away and Kerry can't get it back.

I should have said that originally, it looks like I was beatin up on incap but it wasn't intentional. O8)

[Crunchy Frog]

99. Hey Jim,

I would never want to get in the way of a good fight between you and incap.:evilgrin:

[Jacobin]

17. Whoever wins will have to do a "peace with honor" thingy

as in Vietnam.

When the death count gets to about 10,000 (which won't take long because the death toll is increasing rapidly), someone will have to start talking about the "Iraqization" of the war, start pulling out and make sure there are plenty of helicopters to evacuate the last few thousand americans off rooftops.

We will never subjugate Iraq. It won't happen. They'll fight to run out the invaders until the last one is dead.

[mzmolly]

21. I think your right. He took mucho flak for his Vietnam testimony, I don't

think he want's a repeat.

[BootinUp]

29. Kerry has never said "invade!" or "I support the war" as far as I know

You make a good point about the possible effect of being anti-war at this point.

Many democrats do believe that the IWR vote was a vote for war, I am not one of them.

It was a vote to give authority to Bush yes, but that is not the same thing and don't try to tell me it is. Bush did not say he had decided to go in, in fact it was just the opposite. It wasn't until the last week or so before it, that I realized he really was stupid enough to do it, a ground invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Kerry should tie his vote to the inspections regime, blame Bush for shortcutting them, and present the intelligence failings to further back it up.

[mbali]

34. True . . . He's also preserving his own prerogatives as President . . .

Notice he keeps saying, "I believe that the President should have the authority to use military action as an option." But he's not talking just about Bush. He's keeping HIS options open, knowing that he will very likely be president soon and doesn't want to set up a precedent that would allow Congress to tie his hands. The last thing he needs is to be in similar circumstances down the road and have Congress refuse to authorize the options he needs with them throwing in his face something he said during the campaign.

I think he should stress more that while he believes that a president needs this kind of broad authority, that Bush has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with such power and that, therefore, he should not be in office.

Real leaders don't say and do whatever it takes to win and damn the consequences. They fight like hell to win, yes, but they also consider the long-term consequences of what they say and do and ensure that their campaign rhetoric will not cause serious harm or hamper their ability to govern down the line.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. The constitution says that only congress has the power to declare war.

Giving that power to the president is wrong. Kerry was wrong to vote for the war in Iraq. He is wrong to have stated he would do so again, and he is wrong to put warmaking powers in the hands of the president.

[mbali]

67. Kerry did not put warmaking powers in the president's hands

Congress did that decades ago through the War Powers Act.

What he did do was vote to authorize the president to use force, in addition to a number of other alternatives, which is perfectly appropriate for Congress to do - in fact, that's exactly what "warmaking powers" provides for since Congress, while having the power to declare war, must authorize the president to carry out the hostilities that it does authorize.

I don't agree with Kerry's vote and wish he had voted differently. But, unlike many here, I do not assume that anyone who disagrees with me must be flat-out wrong or that they cannot possibly have any good reason for taking the action that they did. I believe that Kerry's vote was carefully considered and based upon what HE thought was best based upon his knowledge, experience and information. I am not so presumptuous as to assume that my way of looking at this is the only correct perspective or that Kerry's position is untenable because it differs from mine.

I also understand that Kerry is not about to say anything at this point that will set a precedent cutting off his alternatives and prerogatives once he becomes president. He believes that a president should have the ability to use force as an option and is not foolish or short-sighted enough to eliminate that option for himself when he is office.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. That congress sold out long ago doesn't make it right.

The congress should have the only power to authorize force. If Kerry is, as you say, taking the long view, he should realize that he may be elected for a 4 year term, not for life. Even if he should use that power to wage war wisely, who is to say that those who succeed him will do so?

His vote for the war - make no mistake, if he didn't realize that Bush was going to invade Iraq then he was severely deluded - has hobbled him in attacking Bush in the area that he is most vulnerable.

He should renounce that vote and present a realistic plan to end the conflict, rather than the "nuanced" non-plan that is merely Bush's plan with a thin veneer of difference that is meaningless.

[mbali]

71. Congress DID authorize force.

You're not making any sense.

You keep insisting that only Congress can authorize force. That's what the resolution did - it AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO USE FORCE.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Yes, and Kerry voted for it..and would again.

I keep insisting that the vote to use force was wrong and that Kerry refuses to acknowledge that it was wrong. In not doing so, he is still giving Bush justification for continuing the aggression.

Congress, at least those who voted to give the president authorization to use force were wrong. Whether it was the war powers act or the IWR.

[Zhade]

94. Our government isn't based on trust.

The concept we once used was called "separation of powers" - no trust required or desired.

If all that mattered was trust, the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist, because we'd just "trust" our leaders not to impose on our freedoms.

Kerry might be an awesome president - but what if someone as bad as b*sh, or worse, gets into office again? He'd have the authority to make war that Kerry approves of - and that is dangerous, as we've seen in Iraq.

Violating the Constitutional system of checks-and-balances undermines our freedom and gets people killed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Kerry never made any such statement, it's false media spin, totally.

All he said was that he thought his vote to give the President authority was correct. He did not answer the hypothetical that he is reported as having answered and he did not state that "knowing what he knows now, he still would've supported the war in Iraq".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. So, is he unaware of what has happened since he voted for the war?

He answered that he would still have voted for the war.

[BootinUp]

68. Has he said he would have "Ordered the invasion?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. What does that have to do with it? He wasn't in a position to order

anything. He gave authorization to the Goober to invade, and sticks by his vote.

[BootinUp]

73. I know, but it seems that you overlook

the IWR's use as a tool to gain international support for more pressure on Iraq. That is what it was intended to do. And that is why Kerry says he would vote for it again. It was not afterall a declaration of war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Pretty thin.

Everybody but the willfully ignorant knew that Bush was going to attack Iraq. That's why 23 senators voted against it. Why didn't Kerry? Or, did he know and voted for it anyway? Why is it so hard for him to admit he was wrong instead of trying to rationalize it?

[no name no slogan]

76. You can't rationalize the completely irrational

It's pure mental folly to think that a country as beaten down and demoralized as Iraq could have launched ANYTHING resembling an attack in the spring of 2003. ANYBODY who had been paying attention since 1991 (i.e., not trusting American news sources) knew full well that Iraq was in no position to threaten the United States.

Even Iran, Iraq's greatest rival in the region, was not threatened by Iraq. And that was after it fought a bloody 8-year border war with Iraq in the 80s.

Those who voted for IWR clearly did so out of political expediency, or because they wanted an invasion of Iraq. The whole "we trusted Bush to do the right thing" excuse is also a pile of BS, as we knew that any man capable of stealing an election was capable of lying about going to war.

Unfortunately, Kerry's been caught with his pants down on this one, and has effectively taken the one key issue that could win this for the Dems off the table. It has also emboldened Nader to step forward as "the only anti-war candidate", who could easily suck just enough votes away from Kerry to cost him the election.

Kerry needs to do two things: 1) apologize for his IWR vote, and admit he was wrong. By owning up to it, he could very well deflect a lot of the "flip-flopping" claims about him and his vote. 2) Announce a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq withing MONTHS, not years. Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN), a strong, early Kerry supporter, has such a plan which Kerry could use for guidance.

With the US body count nearing 1,000 and the war popularity below 50%, Kerry has nothing to lose at this point by coming out DECISIVELY against the war, the occupation, and the looting of the US treasury. By doing so, he'll effectively chop Nader (and other 3rd party candidates) off at the knees, as its their main issue. He'll pick up another 4-5% of the hardcore anti-war vote at the risk of losing MAYBE 1% of the pro-war vote.

Kerry needs to take action, and soon. Considering that Dubya is the worst president of the last 100 years, the numbers are WAY too close.

[BootinUp]

86. I'm happy for you

that you were so clairvoyant on the Iraq WMD question, and that you get your news from a wide variety of sources. It doesn't change the fact that you were in a tiny tiny minority. And it doesn't mean that Kerry voted for the way he did for the wrong reason.

Myself, I doubted the nuke claims or thought it would be greater than 5 years before he could have them. I believed he did have bio or chemical weapons.

I did not think Bush would invade and occupy, rather I expected an extended bombing campaign and trying to target Sadaam with smart bombs or small special forces tactics.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Pastiche423]

51. lol

Denial is fear of facing reality.

[okieinpain]

78. well his ass needs to get somebody out and talking these

points up. because the repugs are using it to show that he's a flip-flopper.

[Turbo]

90. Half my friends think ...

that Kerry supports the war, and the other half thinks he doesn't.

It doesn't make sense. One of his surrogates should go out there and explain Kerry's policy.

That way they can't accuse him of flip flopping when he wins in November.

[Zhade]

95. Uh, are you sure one of his surrogates should do that?

One did, and it caused a lot of consternation, with only a later partial (and insignificant) "retraction".

See my sig for the type of people Kerry has as advisors.

[Turbo]

87. But how can he win ..

How can Kerry win if he continues to support the Iraq war??

He has to get elected first. And by being wishy washy, trying to beat the Repukes at their own game, he is just giving them more ammunition.

We need a change of advisors at the top of the campaign.