Sick of hearing and reading about the IWR

[politicasista]

Don't understand why all Dems weren't on the same page from the beginning and voted against it. Couldn't they see that * was lying? Everyone knew since 2000-2001 that * was NOT to be trusted.

blm, ProSense, and others are doing a good job of defending the Dems that voted for it. Too bad this IWR thing won't go away anytime soon. It's sad that * managed to keep Dems divided over this issue. :rant:

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. It's not all Bush... plenty of lefties are good at dividing too

There are those who insist on claiming that IWR was a vote for war despite all evidence to the contrary. They refuse to examine their opinions and refuse to admit that they might be wrong, or might have oversimplified the issue. They are as obtuse and willfully ignorant as freepers.

[Noisy Democrat]

10. They also ignore

evidence that people like Kerry were genuinely concerned about the possibility that Saddam had WMDs. They ignore the fact that he'd been talking about it for years, going back to at least 1999, and that stopping weapons proliferation has always been a key issue for him. They pretend that he knew all along that Saddam had nothing, or that he just wasn't concerned either way, and voted for the IWR out of sheer cowardice.

When you ask them how Kerry *could* have supported getting the weapons inspectors back into Iraq without voting for the IWR, you get nothing but the sound of crickets.

[jenndar]

2. Did you hear the NPR interview

last night? Sen. Kerry said that if the Senate had had the same intelligence as the administration, there never would have been an IWR vote.

I know that's not a perfect answer, but at least it pinpoints where things started to get out of control for some of our Dem politicians.

[_dynamicdems]

3. Amen

I'm sick and tired of hearing all the bitching about the Democrats who voted for the war. I was pretty naive back them because I thought all the vote meant was that we were giving Bush the war OPTION to use as leverage. When he actually bombed Iraq, I was horrified. Negotiations and inspections were still on the table and Shrub just up and decided he was done talking...and attacked Iraq. Who would have thought that even Shrub was that freaking crazy?

[karynnj]

4. I'm with you on this

and I did go to DC and NYC anti-war marches in Jan and Feb 03 with my family. I couldn't believe that once Saddam even went ahead with destroying missiles that possibly had too great a range that we would invade. That Bush then said that Saddam was not cooperating was illogical.

I also have to admit I wanted IWR defeated. Of course I didn't know anything about what weapons he had and was anti-war because I have been since the 60s. Reading things this year, I was one of the people that Kerry and others talked about needing to see the compelling need to go to war before we attacked. (Oddly the best summary I have heard of the IWR from a Kerry is Teresa Heinz Kerry that likely it delayed the war by about 4 months. She then said they had hoped it could be averted.)

[ginnyinWI]

9. oh dd, I love that sig pic!

How inspiring! It made me smile. :)

[_dynamicdems]

11. I love this photo and the quote is one of my favorites. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

22. yes--the end of the acceptance speech.

It still brings tears to my eyes.

[_dynamicdems]

23. Me too. That darn Senator Kerry is always making me cry!

Hey, there are two things guranteed to make me cry:

1. A horse movie (expecially race scenes photographed in slow motion)
2. Senator Kerry (moving words, powerful voice)

Sentimental sap that I am.

[Dr Ron]

5. That was the whole point

The IWR vote is a typical Rove tactic.

It was a no win situation. We saw how they responded to Democrats who voted yes.

If Kerry had voted no, they would have campaigned instead by quoting Bush on how the vote did not mean war was inevitable but that America stood together. They would have said that a yes vote meant that they would not have supported force even if America was proven to be threatended.

What was needed was a unified Democratic response protesting the choices offered. Kerry deserves credit for understanding the ramifications of the vote either way, and trying to handle this by voting yes but giving a fuller explanation in his Senate floor speech.

I would have preferred that he vote no and all the Democrats provided such coherent explanations of the issue, making it clear they would support force if Bush came back with the evidence we were threatened. However this is not the important point. The important thing is that Kerry opposed going into Iraq regardless of how he voted.

[TayTay]

6. dupe

Whoops, wrong thread :spank: :blush:

[blm]

7. Because the BRAVE ONES who BOTHERED to GET GUIDELINES put into the IWR

were pretty much stuck with voting for it. They demanded weapons inspectors and that Bush be limited to just Iraq when he also wanted to extend the arena into Iran and Syria.

The negotiators almost always vote for the better bill they helped to get as a matter of process.

Don't just flatter the posts, READ THEM and understand the facts posted.

The IWR is NOT to blame. Bush VIOLATED the IWR. The IWR would have PREVENTED war if administered by any other president.

Blaming the IWR lets Bush off the hook - and THAT is the bottom line.

[Dr Ron]

8. A point not raised enough

Kerry has often said that Bush misused the authority. Wish others would do the same.

[MH1]

12. Did Kerry sponsor/cosponsor amendments on IWR to

make it less putrid?

I know, I could look it up myself. But you always know these things... ;-)

[Mass]

13. No, but he voted for some of them (not all, though).

[MH1]

17. Thanks. n/t

[blm]

15. He was one of the Dems negotiating behind the scenes.

I remember he was pissed that Gephardt jumped the gun and agreed to wording the others who preferred Biden-Lugar wording, weren't happy about, but, when it comes down to it the IWR still should have PREVENTED war if administered honestly.

[TayTay]

16. Yup. That was a bad deal and I think Gephardt has recanted

GEPHARDT FORGES IRAQ DEAL WITH BUSH DEMOCRAT'S EYE IS ON FALL HOUSE ELECTION, 2004 PRESIDENTIAL BID WASHINGTON POST, LOS ANGELES TIMES
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Final, Sec. A NEWS, p 12 10-03-2002
By WASHINGTON POST

Washington -- Under fire for politicizing the debate over Iraq and facing growing opposition to his plan to confront Saddam Hussein, President Bush turned to a staunch Democratic rival who might run against him in 2004: Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt.

In two days of frantic and sometimes-contentious negotiations starting Monday morning and culminating late Tuesday, Gephardt was persuaded to break ranks with many in his party, including the Senate Democratic leader, and cut a surprise deal with the White House that paves the way for a bipartisan congressional endorsement of Bush's Iraq policy next week.

Since June, Gephardt has supported proposals to strike Iraq and topple Hussein, although he did join Democrats last week in accusing Bush of politicizing national security. This week, when Bush needed a high-profile Democrat to join him in crafting a congressional resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, the House minority leader stepped into the role.

His decision sapped momentum from a bipartisan campaign, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), to restrict Bush's options in attacking Iraq. It isolated Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) from the congressional leaders who backed Bush. It blunted criticism that Bush was going it alone. And it greatly increased the likelihood that Bush will win broad, bipartisan support when the House and Senate vote on the war resolution next week.

[MH1]

20. Hmmm. Sheds a new light.

Perhaps this is a good point to raise with those who insist on revisiting history for the purpose of bashing Kerry. Maybe THIS bit of history needs to be revisited a little more.

[MH1]

19. Thanks, and you are right.

People tend to forget the nuances of how things like this are done. Sometimes their forgetfullness is out of convenience for supporting their own candidate or issue, sometimes I think it is honestly not knowing.

[ProSense]

14. Hipocrisy drives these critics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5382319&mesg_id=5383195

At a time when Democrats (yes, even the ones who voted for the IWR) are pulling together to hold Bush accountable, there are those who feel the need to attack "certain" Democrats.

[Dr Ron]

18. Probably no point. . .

in pointing out to the person who posted this the fact that Kerry advised against going to war before the war started.

[ProSense]

21. No point at all! These are attacks, not reasoned criticisms. n/t