The IWR vote in the real world

[politicasista]

I haven't got around to interacting with people about politics outside of the blogosphere (other than my father), but how is the IWR vote playing out in the real world?

Like people here and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere: Do people say, "I won't vote for _______ because _______ voted for the IWR," "we need to nominate an Anti-War candidate"(aka someone that "opposed the war from the start")?

The reason why I asked this is because of a blog interaction with a political friend about Edwards' run for 08. Kerry wasn't mentioned, but they didn't seem impressed in 04 and are undecided for 08.

One post:

It's funny because during the 04 race many people felt that the Dems might've been more successful if the ticket was switched: Edwards/Kerry.

Counter reply:

Possibly. But they would have smeared Edwards just as worse on his "sunshine" personality and lack of foreign inexperience like they did with Kerry and the Swift Boat liars.

Is there a way to counter this response?

I basically feel the same way regarding Edwards (lack of experience)...I so appreciate him focusing on poverty..In that sense it's reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy... But Bobby wus also a fighter in the worst way! Stubborn as hell!

I don't kno the experience is an issue but not as much as him voting with Bush to go to war, I think is the biggest hurdle I'm having with him... I neva supported that war..I'm looking for a candidate that wus against the war and not afraid to stand on it. far and few I kno..but we'll work from there..lol As you said the years ahead gon be a mess...

Bush had this country crippled in fear, the grips are just now starting to relax a bit, including most politicians but not all, so I'm gonna wait on som of those candidates to come forth...

I know this post is long and I hope I am not coming across as defeatist, but I know the perceptions won't go away anytime soon

[beachmom]

1. My Dad is anti-Democratic, seems to blame them almost as much

as Bush for not standing up to him. But he doesn't specifically talk about the vote, just the lack of leadership in general.

I think your average folks, who are mildly anti-war, aren't going to go on and on about the vote. I think Kerry's best strategy is by focusing on leadership NOW, and to talk about how he displayed that leadership in '06 and was villified over it.

If it makes you feel any better, you can go blast Hillary on TPM -- I link in the other thread. I'm already tired of her and am ready to be an attack dog. She is hated by many on the Left and ALL of the Right. A swing voter friend of mine matter of factly said she won't get the nomination. She always votes for the winner in the General. (sigh -- she voted for Bush in '04) So I take what she says very seriously.

[blm]

2. Being for a resolution to allow war IF NECESSARY is not the same as being FOR war.

The media has convinced people it is.

[politicasista]

5. And people fell right into it

And the vote still haunts Dems because there were those that knew that Bush was a fool and was going lie about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x118024#118036

[blm]

12. Baloney - they didn't know Bush was going to lie about it. They didn't SAY SO

did they when they voted against it?

Nope. Not a one stood up and voted against IWR because they said Bush was going to lie about it.

In fact, those with LONG experience re military matters and Iraq specifically, did make the same mistake I did - believed that Bush1, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell had greater influence on Bush2's decisions regarding actual military force. ALL of them were opposed to invasion.

[politicasista]

13. People like...

the Congressional Black Caucus, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Conyers, Rangel and others knew how Bush is and saw that war was "bullshit". They knew he was going to lie about the vote so that's why they said no to it, and that's why they are being lionized as heroes here and elsewhere cause they voted no. That's why you have people like Al Sharpton and other Democrats repeating the "voted for the war" memo.

I am not making all this up. I hear this every time the news reports on Iraq. I hear it on urban talk radio. I have to listen to my family asks "What were the Dems thinking?" "Why didn't they listen to Kennedy, Byrd, and others?" This is why I don't mention Kerry's name around anyone. :shrug:.

I am NOT attacking Kerry or anyone that voted for it. What I meant that people that voted yes on it on on record of now having to apologize for it, even though Bush lied and invaded without a vote.

[blm]

14. Show me ONE floor speech where anyone who voted no said OFFICIALLY that they knew

Bush was going to lie when making his determination for military force after weapons inspections and diplomacy.

If they wanted to warn people before that they knew Bush was going to lie, then why didn't they do so publically?

It is ILLEGAL for a president to lie in an official letter to congress. Bush lied in his letter to congress. Congress and all those who say they KNEW Bush was going to lie should be drawing up impeachment papers, because now they have PROOF he lied - Downing Street Memos.

I am all for impeachment for lying us into war in his official letter to congress - instead, too many people waste their time blaming the IWR for war when it wasn't responsible for it, and waste more time attacking those Dems who believed that Bush1, Baker, Scowcroft and Powell had a tighter grip on Bush2 than the neocons did.

[politicasista]

15. It wasn't a speech it was media soundbytes

and my family's opinion. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any audio files of Sharpton's comments, but I found this article about what Congresswoman Lee said 5 years ago.

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer


Monday, December 4, 2006; A04


Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

He recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action until inspectors from the United Nations completed their work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would pass." It got 72 votes.


On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked." That information, she said, came from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had provided to the Senate.

Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of weapons of mass destruction?"

Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how to get out of Iraq."
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a committee with national security jurisdiction, was among the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no history of democratic government in Iraq," that its "economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a great deal of money."

Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?"

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126
House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.
"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108_2.html

Published on Friday, October 11, 2002 by the Los Angeles Times

For Dissenters, 'Nos' Were a Vote of Conscience
by Nick Anderson and Richard Simon

WASHINGTON -- They spurned the president. They broke ranks with party leaders. And they asserted that the American people and history were on their side.

They were the dissenters: 133 House members who voted Thursday and 23 senators who voted early today against a resolution to grant President Bush broad authority to make war against Iraq if diplomacy fails to stop the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.


The two largest minority blocs in the House--the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus--voted overwhelmingly against the resolution. Of 37 African American lawmakers, 32 were opposed, and of 19 Latinos, 15 were opposed.

Some cited strong anti-war sentiment in their districts.

"In my district, I've only gotten three requests to vote for the resolution against hundreds and hundreds," said Rep. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), who is African American. Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel), who also voted no, said his mail and phone calls were running 200 to 1 against the White House-backed resolution.

In addition, 35 of the 59 women in the House voted no. Their ranks included Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.).

Morella, who represents a liberal suburb of Washington and is in a tough reelection contest, objected to taking "this final and irrevocable step of authorizing full-scale military action" until every other option is exhausted.

Most opponents said the president should give U.N. inspectors a chance to find and disable Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Only if such a last-ditch initiative fails, they said, should Bush come back to Congress for another vote to authorize military action.

A go-it-alone approach, the dissenters said, would hamper efforts to build a global coalition against Iraq and could ignite a tinderbox in the Middle East. "We've seen progress," said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), "but this resolution would brush it all aside."

Opponents also said they were unconvinced that Iraq poses an imminent threat.

"There is absolutely no evidence any thinking person could give that says we are in danger from Saddam Hussein today," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward). "You are in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince George's County," a reference to a recent series of shootings in Washington's suburbs.

Two California Democrats who opposed the 1991 Gulf War resolution, Reps. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles and Calvin M. Dooley of Fresno, voted Thursday for the White House-backed resolution.

But one California Democrat switched the other way. Rep. Gary A. Condit of Ceres, who supported the 1991 resolution, dissented Thursday.

The Senate debate ended with a vote early today that also underscored the Democrats' division.

"Democrats don't walk in lock-step," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who also opposed the Bush-backed resolution. "We're independent thinking, and I believe the people want that."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), another dissenter, added: "The president has not decided that our nation should go to war.... But this resolution leaves it to the president to make the decision on his own, without further recourse to Congress or to the American people."

Kennedy's arguments, however, couldn't sway his own son. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) voted for the resolution.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-02.htm

Against the Hijacking of Patriotism

PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST


"In all good conscience, I cannot and will not vote for a resolution that supports and endorses a failed policy that led us to war," declared US Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, as he explained why he could not join most members of Congress in backing what Republican leaders on the House of Representatives cynically described as a simple "support our troops" resolution.

The resolution, which passed the House by an overwhelming margin Friday morning, did express support for soldiers who have been ordered into combat in Iraq, and for the families of young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States in a time of war. But those sentiments came wrapped in a highly partisan expression of "unequivocal support . . . for firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq." After a failed attempt by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to extract the more extreme cheerleading language – perhaps by paralleling the more reasoned wording of the resolution that passed the Senate 99-1 on Thursday – the measure passed the House by a vote of 392-11, with 22 members voting "present."

Many of the House Democrats and Republicans who opposed the October "use of force" resolution that the administration used as justification for launching the war expressed discomfort with Friday's "unequivocal support" statement. But most, including Pelosi, backed it.

The bulk of the opposition to the measure came from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as Lewis, the civil rights movement hero who is frequently referred to as the conscience of the Congress. An angry U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, said, "I trust the American people to see through this attempt to coerce endorsement of his preventive war doctrine."

The ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving African-American member of Congress, Conyers has been outspoken in expressing Constitutional concerns about the president's decision to launch the war. "What I'm telling my colleagues in Congress and citizens is that we must continue to protest this illegal and unconstitutional war," argues Conyers. "The president has no authority to do what he's doing."

On the 11 House Democrats who voted against the "unequivocal support" resolution, eight were members of the Congressional Black Caucus: Conyers; Ohioan Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Californians Barbara Lee, Diane Watson and Maxine Waters; New Yorkers Charles Rangel and Edolphus Towns; and Virginian Bobby Scott. They were joined by California Democrats Mike Honda and Pete Stark, as well as Washington state's Jim McDermott.

Fifteen members of the CBC, including Lewis, CBC chair Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, and CBC vice-chair Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, voted present. They were joined by seven other House members, including leaders of the anti-war block in the Democratic caucus, such as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. In addition to Lewis, Cummings, Johnson and Kucinich, "present" votes came from California's Sam Farr; Florida's Corrine Brown; Indiana's Julia Carson; Missouri's William Clay Jr.; Maryland's Elijah Cummings; Illinois' Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr., Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky; Michigan's Carolyn Kilpatrick; Minnesota's Martin Olav Sabo; New Jersey's Donald Payne; New York's Gregory Meeks and Major Owens; North Carolina's Mel Watt; Ohio's Sherrod Brown; and Texans Sheila Jackson-Lee and Lloyd Doggett. The single Republican to vote against the resolution was Texan Ron Paul.

The House members who opposed the resolution or voted "present" went out of their way to express sympathy for soldiers and their families. But many also expressed outrage at the determination of House Republican leaders, particularly Majority Leader Tom DeLay, D-Texas, to play politics with the matter.

California's Diane Watson, a former U.S. ambassador to Micronesia, summed up those sentiments after voting against the resolution.

,"As our troops endure the risks of battle in Iraq, we send to them our thoughts and prayers for their success and safe return. This is a time for all Americans to join in sending a clear message of support for our men and women in uniform," explained Watson. "That is why I am saddened and angered that the House Republican leaders would abuse an opportunity to show our troops support in order to make an overtly political statement. Rather than introduce a simple bill supporting our troops, House Republicans forced us to vote up or down on a resolution that endorses the President's mishandling of diplomacy and heedless march toward war."

Watson said Republicans "hijacked this resolution for their selfish political purposes."

"I support the troops," she added. "But I will not be coerced into endorsing the President's failure to resolve the Iraq dispute peacefully. We are not at war because it is necessary. We are at war because the President failed to find a diplomatic solution to this problem."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=510

[blm]

16. Point being that no one said they "knew' Bush was going to lie and never said so

as the reason they wouldn't vote for the bill, even though many like to claim now as one of the many internet myths that was their reason all along.

[politicasista]

17. True. But look at all the IWR threads popping up

and why are Uncle Ted and Boxer on record as saying that the IWR was the "proudest vote" they have cast in their careers? :shrug:

Again, I am not attacking Kerry. We disagree on this issue and that's understandable. Dr. Fate in GD pretty much nails what happened by saying that if you said yes, it is/was spun as trusting Bush, which is why I said the vote is still haunting Kerry in some ways, cause there may be those in the Anti-War crowd that may not be so forgiving.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3035858#3040872

[ProSense]

18. People really need to get over this. It's pointless.

Reyes voted against the IWR, but doesn't have a clue who al Qaeda is and supports escalating the war. John Nichols went on about the IWR vote, mostly focusing on Kerry whenever he could, but now he finds an excuse to support Edwards. Levin who had his own version of the IWR, is toying with the idea of supporting a surge.

End the war and hold bush accountable, this is where everyone's energy should be focused.

No matter how many times people repeat the distortion, the facts will not change:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3035598&mesg_id=3035598

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3035598&mesg_id=3037780

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3035598&mesg_id=3037951

[politicasista]

19. It is, but may come up in 2008

as a litmus test, you think?:shrug: And no, I am not letting Bush off the hook either. This is his war.

[Mass]

20. Litmus test: Look at the list of people running or planning to run:

- Senators or ex senators:

-Biden
-Clinton
-Dodd
-Kerry
-Obama (only one who did not vote for the IWR and clearly opposed it).

-Congress
Kucinich (the only one who voted AGAINST it, supports a clear withdrawal of the troops and a cut in troop fundings). Now, if a majority of dems want to support him, I am all for it, but we cannot dream too much. Most of the people do not want Kerry because they think he is not electable, so imagine, Kucinich!


Governors
-Richardson
-Vilsack
None of them opposed it.

Outsiders
-Edwards (cosponsored and voted for the IWR)
-Clark (he is certainly a favorite on DU, but it is not clear he will run)
-Gore (my guess is he will not run)
-Gravel (???)

Honestly, I do not think the problem for Kerry is the IWR. However, the problem at this point is that many people see him as non electable for different reasons (all the BS that the media have said for months now:do not connect, is from the NE, patrician, foot-in-the-mouth disease, to indecisive, ...). I do not know if he will run, but if he does, I doubt that in the real world, the IWR will be the issue.

[politicasista]

23. That's why he is going to need some good PR

to counter the distortions when they arise. I do think electability is one cause people have been brainwashed with kool-aid media spin the last three months.

[Mass]

24. A good example here of what I mean

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

9. John Kerry (last ranking: 5)
It may seem mean that we've dropped the '04 nominee this far down our list. But he seems less sure about a run, which is why we've dropped him. If he indicates that he's leaning more toward running, then we'll move him back up.

Now, this is not all negative or positive:

Chuck Todd does not consider Kerry as the worst candidate of the lot, but the problem is that, while three months ago everybody thought Kerry would run, the rumors that people have heard make them doubt he will run. I think this is also the reason why so many MA Dems have made such statements. The longer he waits, the less people will talk about him. So, if he wants to run, he should say so soon.

It may seem prematurate because the Senate needs to do so many things, but this is how the game is played, unfortunately.

Another example that bothered me this morning

http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=266057

Q. Given your role in the Senate, how do you balance...

A. This is tricky. We've got so many presidential candidates in the Senate starting with Hillary but including Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who have I missed? Bayh is out of the picture now, John Kerry and maybe others.

It is a delicate situation but I think most of those who have done this for a number of years are not surprised that the senator from Illinois is endorsing his colleague for the presidency.

If Obama runs, I am not surprised that Durbin endorses him, but what bothers me is that he does not seem to be sure of Kerry while he is sure of Dodd

[MBS]

26. thanks for these links

They both were interesting.

1. I tend to discount Durbin's assessment, since, as the interview itself confirms, Durbin has REALLY been pushing the idea of an Obama run, both to Obama himself, and to the media. All of his remarks about others should be viewed through that filter. Whether his PR push is really only about Obama or ultimately about some other agenda (I actually don't quite get why he's doing this so blatantly and intensely), I don't know, but, for whatever reason, he's been pushing the Obama idea hard 24/7.

2. The Chuck Todd article (National Journal link above) has some other interesting comments, beyond the numerical assessments you cite. Here are some quotes that caught my attention:
a. . . "All of Edwards' strengths may fade away with Obama in the race, because the vacuum that will be left in the Democratic primary won't be for a liberal like Edwards, and instead will be for a senior statesman . . "
b. ". . .Follow this train of thought: Obama's inexperience highlights Clinton's relative inexperience, which highlights Edwards' inexperience, which leaves room for someone to play the "let's not go the Bush route again" card. And while . . Biden, . . . Dodd and . . . Clark all have their flaws, all can claim uber-experience to actually do the president's job, and it's possible the Iowa caucus-goers may demand an experienced candidate in the mix."

Kerry's not mentioned in either of these comments, because of Todd's uncertainty about whether JK is running. But, obviously, if people wawnt a senior statesman, an experienced candidate. . well, there's only one choice!!!! I've been hearing more and more mention lately , in newspapers and NPR, that voters seem to be in the mood for substance this time around. All I can say to this is, IT'S ABOUT TIME!!
And also, if you want substance, I know just the man for you.:)

Also:
c. "It's not only the lack of a single heir to President Bush that makes the race so open; it's that the more one examines the front-runners for each party, the more flaws one finds. Depending on the week, I change my mind about who is the weaker front-runner, . . . Clinton (D) or. . . McCain (R). Neither has a stranglehold on the respective party’s nomination. . "
d."There's clearly a hunger (be it in the media, the Democratic establishment or even among actual voters) for an alternative to Clinton. . ."
e."If the media stays as ridiculously fascinated with the Clinton v. Obama storyline as they have been the last month. . "

[ProSense]

21. No it will not.

It wasn't a litmus test in 2004 or 2006.

[politicasista]

22. Oh, ok. thanks n/t

[karynnj]

3. All I can think of :

On experience:
Is that experience is important. Would they go to a doctor who has little experience? Would they hirer a contractor to build a house, who has only brief experience even being on a team building houses. Edwards is wrong - experience matters, but it does not suffice. It has to be accompanied by a vision that is spelled out with enough depth that it has meaning.

Also, you want a person who adapts to the needs of the time but has a solid consistent core that is who he is. Edwards has changed from a consummate Senate insider mentored and favored by the leaders who had the most conservative ideas of all the 2004 candidates and who at least through Oct 2003, was a cheerleader for the war to playacting at being an activist. Most of what Edwards does is talk. (Obama has roots as an activist. Kerry has roots as an activist. Edwards only voted until well into his 40s.)

The war:
Contrast Kerry's IWR speech, the fact that consistent with his speech he spoke out on Jan 23, 2003 urging Bush not to rush to war and the Pepperdine speech where he said what constitutes a just war in his opinion. I feel I know what case would have to be made before Kerry would take the country to war.

I feel from Edwards, that had the war worked and we would have gotten out quickly - Edwards would NEVER feel the war was wrong, for Kerry, it would still be an unjust war.

Kerry has also been the leader over the last 3 years in promoting well thought out alternatives to Bush's plans. you know what you will get if you elect Kerry - his plan may not be his now current one, but it will certainly have major components of diplomacy and pushing the Iraqis to make the choices needed to insure their own success.

Poverty:
Edwards talks a good game - but what has he done. He is no where near the first person to speak of the income gap. Here the only counter is that Kerry via his small business committee has pushed micro loans and fought every year to continue their funding. He also has pushed to help minority and female business.

Look at the plan that Kerry put together for New Orleans. Mention that he and Teresa quietly sent planes to Mississippi with relief supplies and it is known only through Lott that it became known. (Then quote the Arkansas paper - Kerry does do the right thing when no one is looking.)

[politicasista]

4. Done, thanks!

Maybe it will make those think about what they want in their candidate

[sandnsea]

6. Edwards supported the actual war

not just the IWR. Can't figure out how he would be considered a better candidate based on the war.

[karynnj]

27. It has made it easier for him to say I made a mistake on

being for the war. Kerry seems less direct - but he can't say he made a mistake being for the war, because he wasn't and -from the definition in the Pepperdine speech - did not think it was a just war even when it started. (I am so glad for that speech as it acts almost as the missing link adding weight to oft repeated and remembered words. "War of last resort")

[Mass]

7. Another thing without any relation with the IWR.

I think it may be worth explaining to people who are impressed by the fact the Edwards speaks about poverty (I think it is a good think) what Kerry has actually DONE on this issue, by his role in the SBC for minorities and women's business ownership, for example, by his bill concerning children' healthcare, the fact that he was the first co-sponsor of the bill concerning help to the states for energy costs (somebody else will remember the bill, that was later pushed by Reed, then by the whole caucus at some point), and also by the multiple bills that him and Landrieu have promoted concerning help to New Orleans.

It is true that Kerry does not use the word "poverty" very liberally (not sure why), but he has done a lot thru his years in the Senate.

Poverty is the signature issue of John Edwards, and justly so, but it does not mean that other candidates do not care and have not done anything about that.

[Island Blue]

8. What Kerry has done.

Here are the bills dealing with poverty/low income issues that JK sponsored during the 106th, 107th and 108th congresses. (I was looking these up the other day because I was comparing his record to Edwards', and that's when Edwards was in the Senate.) These do not include any bills that someone else introduced, but that JK was a co-sponsor on. This list also does not include any small business type bills per se.

106th
1. S.AMDT.3839 to H.R.8 To establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 7/13/2000) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 7/14/2000 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3839 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 52. Record Vote Number: 189.

106th
1. S.1994 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide assistance to first-time home buyers.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 11/19/1999) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 11/19/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

106th
1. S.1068 : A bill to provide for health, education, and welfare of children under 6 years of age.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 5/18/1999) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 5/18/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on HELP.


106th
1. S.824 : A bill to improve educational systems and facilities to better educate students throughout the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/15/1999) Cosponsors (13)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/15/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on HELP.

107th
1. S.3126 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an income tax credit for the provision of homeownership and community development, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 10/16/2002) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 10/16/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

107th
1. S.1759 : A bill to provide a short-term enhanced safety net for Americans losing their jobs and to provide our Nation's economy with a necessary boost.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 12/3/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 12/3/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

107th
1. S.1303 : A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for payment under the medicare program for more frequent hemodialysis treatments.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 8/2/2001) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.


107th
1. S.1248 : A bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable, housing for low-income families, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 7/25/2001) Cosponsors (28)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 5/15/2002 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. Hearings held.


107th
1. S.RES.26 : A resolution stating the sense of the Senate regarding funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 2/15/2001) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: Senate Appropriations
Latest Major Action: 2/15/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.


108th
1. S.1411 : A bill to establish a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 7/15/2003) Cosponsors (21)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 7/15/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

108th
1. S.305 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include in the criteria for selecting any project for the low-income housing credit whether such project has high-speed Internet infrastructure.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 2/5/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html

[karynnj]

28. That's not what THOMAS says

Because I was bored and tired of shapeshifter, I played aroud in Thomas. I know you can speak of poverty using different words - but Edwards - once he found his theme in 2004 -- said poverty more than any human should. So, I thought - let's look at Thomas and see how often our pages for favorite very tall Senator matched "poverty" and how often Edwards did.

The 106th Congress:
Kerry - 137
Edwards - 62

The 107th Congress
Kerry - 101
Edwards - 56

The 108th Congress
Kerry - 128
Edwards - 90

I think the tall Senator wins!

[TayTay]

9. This has to be addressed head on

This is not a black or white, yes or no question. People want it to be so, because it is always easier to confront something in hindsight if you can make it out to be a stark contrast. That vote in Oct of 2002 took place within a framework and the circumstances were murky. (At best they were murky.)

Let's begin here: 105th Congress, second session (1998)

S.CON.RES.78
Title: A concurrent resolution relating to the indictment and prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen (introduced 3/2/1998) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/1998 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations. COSPONSORS(11), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen D'Amato, Alfonse - 3/10/1998
Sen Daschle, Thomas A. - 3/12/1998
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 3/11/1998
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 3/4/1998
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert - 3/6/1998
Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/12/1998
Sen Kyl, Jon - 3/11/1998
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 3/13/1998
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 3/11/1998
Sen Moynihan, Daniel Patrick - 3/12/1998
Sen Robb, Charles S. - 3/13/1998

This is what that said:

Whereas the International Military Tribunal at Nurenberg was convened to try individuals for crimes against international law committed during World War II; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

SCON 78 ES

105th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. CON. RES. 78

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the International Military Tribunal at Nurenberg was convened to try individuals for crimes against international law committed during World War II;

Whereas the Nuremberg tribunal provision which stated that `crimes against international law are committed by men, not be abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced' is as valid today as it was in 1946;

Whereas, on August 2, 1990, without provocation, Iraq initiated a war of aggression against the sovereign state of Kuwait;

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations imposes on its members the obligations to `refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state';

Whereas the leaders of the Government of Iraq, a country which is a member of the United Nations, did violate this provision of the United Nations Charter;

Whereas the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (the Fourth Geneva Convention) imposes certain obligations upon a belligerent State, occupying another country by force of arms, in order to protect the civilian population of the occupied territory from some of the ravages of the conflict;

Whereas both Iraq and Kuwait are parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention;

Whereas the public testimony of witnesses and victims has indicated that Iraqi officials violated Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by their inhumane treatment and acts of violence against the Kuwaiti civilian population;

Whereas the public testimony of witnesses and victims has indicated that Iraqi officials violated Articles 31 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by subjecting Kuwaiti civilians to physical coercion, suffering and extermination in order to obtain information;

Whereas in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, from January 18, 1991, to February 25, 1991, Iraq did fire 39 missiles on Israel in 18 separate attacks with the intent of making it a party to war and with the intent of killing or injuring innocent civilians, killing 2 persons directly, killing 12 people indirectly (through heart attacks, improper use of gas masks, choking), and injuring more than 200 persons;

Whereas Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that persons committing `grave breaches' are to be apprehended and subjected to trial;

Whereas, on several occasions, the United Nations Security Council has found Iraq's treatment of Kuwaiti civilians to be in violation of international humanitarian law;

Whereas, in Resolution 665, adopted on August 25, 1990, the United Nations Security Council deplored `the loss of innocent life stemming from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait';

Whereas, in Resolution 670, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 25, 1990, it condemned further `the treatment by Iraqi forces on Kuwait nationals and reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to Kuwait';

Whereas, in Resolution 674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on October 29, 1990, the Council demanded that Iraq cease mistreating and oppressing Kuwaiti nationals in violation of the Convention and reminded Iraq that it would be liable for any damage or injury suffered by Kuwaiti nationals due to Iraq's invasion and illegal occupation;

Whereas Iraq is a party to the Prisoners of War Convention and there is evidence and testimony that during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq violated articles of the Convention by its physical and psychological abuse of military and civilian POW's including members of the international press;

Whereas Iraq has committed deliberate and calculated crimes of environmental terrorism, inflicting grave risk to the health and well-being of innocent civilians in the region by its willful ignition of over 700 Kuwaiti oil wells in January and February, 1991;

Whereas President Clinton found `compelling evidence' that the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an operation to assassinate former President George Bush in April 1993 when he visited Kuwait;

Whereas Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials have systematically attempted to destroy the Kurdish population in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons against civilian Kurds, campaigns in 1987-88 which resulted in the disappearance of more than 150,000 persons and the destruction of more than 4,000 villages, the placement of more than 10 million landmines in Iraqi Kurdistan, and ethnic cleansing in the city of Kirkuk;

Whereas the Republic of Iraq is a signatory to international agreements including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the POW Convention, and is obligated to comply with these international agreements;

Whereas paragraph 8 of Resolution 687 of the United Nations Security Council, adopted on April 8, 1991, requires Iraq to `unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities;

Whereas Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq have persistently and flagrantly violated the terms of Resolution 687 with respect to elimination of weapons of mass destruction and inspections by international supervisors;

Whereas there is good reason to believe that Iraq continues to have stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, missiles capable of transporting such agents, and the capacity to produce such weapons of mass destruction, putting the international community at risk;

Whereas, on February 22, 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 808 establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused of violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia;

Whereas, on November 8, 1994, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 955 establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused of the commission of violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda;

Whereas more than 70 individuals have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, leading in the first trial to the sentencing of a Serb jailer to 20 years in prison;

Whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has indicted 31 individuals, with three trials occurring at present and 27 individuals in custody;

Whereas the United States has to date spent more than $24,000,000 for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and more than $20,000,000 for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda;

Whereas officials such as former President George Bush, Vice President Al Gore, General Norman Schwarzkopf and others have labeled Saddam Hussein a war criminal and called for his indictment; and

Whereas a failure to try and punish leaders and other persons for crimes against international law establishes a dangerous precedent and negatively impacts the value of deterrence to future illegal acts: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President should--

(1) call for the creation of a commission under the auspices of the United Nations to establish an international record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials;

(2) call for the United Nations to form an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and any other Iraqi officials who may be found responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other violations of international humanitarian law; and

(3) upon the creation of a commission and international criminal tribunal, take steps necessary, including the reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice.

Passed the Senate March 13, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.

105th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. CON. RES. 78

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Relating to the indictment and prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.con.res.00078:

Ahm, It's not like that vote happened in a vacuum people.

[TayTay]

10. Floor speech on that Senate Res 78 (105th Congress)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for introducing this resolution, which I supported when it was considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations and again supported on the vote just taken.

Our world has come a long way since the dawn of civilization. As human beings have evolved biologically and eventually socially, we have come to realize that we can safely and happily live together on this globe only if we abide by certain rules of behavior. The course of civilization is, in large measure, the history of humankind's increasing and increasingly sophisticated efforts to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior--for individuals, groups, and nations, and our successes and failures to abide by those definitions and the consequences of those successes and failures.

Other Senators, Mr. President, particularly the resolution's principal sponsor and a key cosponsor, the Senator from North Dakota , have set forth in considerable detail the bill of particulars against the dictator of Iraq. Those include documented chemical weapons attacks against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq War. They include chemical weapons attacks against Kurds in Iraq--Iraqi citizens, keep in mind--leaving behind the most revolting human injuries imaginable. Men, women, children, infants--no one was spared. Many died immediately. Many who managed to survive wished they had died. Some of them died later with no interruption in their agony--blindness, peeling skin, gaping sores, asphyxiation. And others, even if they did not evince the same signs of injury, have transmitted the horror of those attacks across time and even generations. Terrible birth defects have afflicted the offspring of many who survived Saddam Hussein's attacks. The rate of miscarriages and stillbirths has soared for those survivors.

We do not know why Saddam Hussein chose not to use these weapons against the Coalition troops in the Gulf War that resulted from his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. We do know that he had them in his inventory, and the means of delivering them. We do know that his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs were proceeding with his active support.

We have evidence, collected by the United Nations's inspectors during those inspections that Saddam Hussein has permitted them to make, that despite his pledges at the conclusion of the war that no further work would be done in these weapons of mass destruction programs, and that all prior work and weapons that resulted from it would be destroyed, this work has continued illegally and covertly.

And, Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so.

Saddam Hussein has not limited his unspeakable actions to use of weapons of mass destruction. He and his loyalists have proven themselves quite comfortable with old fashioned instruments and techniques of torture--both physical and psychological. During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaiti women were systematically raped and otherwise assaulted. The accounts of the torture chambers in his permanent and makeshift prisons and detention facilities are gruesome by any measure.

Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's actions in terrorizing his own people and in using horrible weapons and means of torture against those who oppose him, be they his own countrymen and women or citizens of other nations, collectively comprise the definition of crimes against humanity.

I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff--and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point--we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses.

But the vote this morning was about a different albeit related matter today. It was about initiating a process of bringing the world's opprobrium to bear on this reprehensible criminal--to officially designate Saddam Hussein as that which we know him to be.

We are realists, Mr. President. Even if this process leads as we believe it will to the conviction of Saddam Hussein under international law, our ability to carry out any resulting sentence may be constrained as long as he remains in power in Baghdad. But Saddam Hussein will not remain in power in Baghdad forever. Eventually, if we persist out of dedication to the cause that we must never permit anyone one who treats other human beings the way he has treated tens of thousands of human beings to escape justice, we will bring Saddam Hussein to justice. And in the meantime, his conviction on these charges may prove of benefit to our efforts to isolate him and his government, and to rally the support of other nations around the world to the effort to remove him from power.

I am pleased, Mr. President, that this resolution was agreed to unanimously, and hopeful that soon the machinery of international law will be applied as it was designed to label Saddam Hussein as the horrific murderer and torturer he is, recognition he richly deserves.

Sen. John Kerry, US Senate, 3/13/1998

[MBS]

11. a thoughtful comment in the kerry.com blog

In the blogosphere and the blue-state demographic, there's been so much focus on the IWR-vote as litmus test, and I share everyone's frustration on this (why won't Paul Krugman get OVER it already? so frustrating)
But it's useful to remember that there are other people out there in the real world, too, whose opposition to the Iraq war came about at a different pace, by a different route. There's a thoughtful post by "Jeanne" in the Happy New Year thread of johnkerry.com that speaks for some of these people. Currently, she's the last post (#90).

Jeanne comes from a different perspective than most of us. I , for instance, was deeply apprehensive and strongly opposed to the Iraq war from the very beginning (I've never in my life had such a strong feeling of doom and dread as Bush started the war-drums beating in fall 2002, and continue to feel that Iraq is far worse than Vietnam because it was premeditated and unprovoked: Vietnam was also a doomed. misbegotten enterprise, adied and abetted by lies, but it was something we got sucked into gradually, over the course of 3, ultimately 4, administrations: but Iraq was BushRummyCheney's explicit dream from the get-go, an completely unjust and unjustified war made even more outrageous by the stupefying fact that this war, premeditated though it was by the neocons-- they even had the luxury of choosing a time and place to invade, at their leisure-- has been handled with such breathtaking incompetence at all phases. But while I was dismayed at the time that so many Dem senators supported IWR, I also understood what a box that the Rovians had placed them in. They really were put in a lose-lose situation, especially anyone running for reelection in a red state or aspiring to higher office. (I"m sure people have noticed that. other than Kucinich, all the "pure" anti-war presidential candidates in 2004 and 2008, declared or otherwise, conveniently were not in Congress at the time of the IWR, so never had to back up their opinions with a vote). Kerry's thoughtful speech was the best he could do in a very very difficult political situation.)

Anyway, Jeanne comes from a different place from me and most of us, one that probably speaks to a huge swath of the country. She was initially supportive of the war, but changed over time.And she clearly sees the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and why someone like John Kerry, who knows the parallels more than anyone, is essential to helping us out of this nightmare.

[emulatorloo]

25. Let me put it as simply as possible. HOGWASH

At the time, the majority of the American people believed Bush when he said Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that nuclear weapons were just around the corner.

Now, the majority of the American people have realised that the war was a mistake and Bush was a liar. They will certainly be able to understand when a candidate says "Bush was a liar. My vote for the IWR was a mistake."

DU and my *ssh*le holier-than-thou friends may want to obsess over this and rehash it to death. But I guarentee you most people feel that they were abused by Bush, not Dem Senators who have seen the error of their ways.

What worries me are the Dems who won't admit the mistake, and those who make some big to-do out of how they "wouldn't have voted for it" even though they never actually had to face that test.

That's the simple version.

<lurk mode back on>

ON EDIT DE-LURKING:

Eugene McCarthy "Voted For the WAR!!!!!!' but you never saw people wasting their time obsessing over it when he ran as an antiwar candidate

BYE BYE!!!!!

:bounce: