Final observation

[politicasista]

about the IWR.

After reading ProSense and everyone elses rebuttals of the claims that IWR was a "vote for war," when this is clearly Bush's war, just some interesting observations (I am catching on :) )

Those that voted for it, voted for diplomacy (UN) and getting weapons inspectors only if Sadaam was a threat, not for war.

Bush violated the IWR, but the left helped Bush, the repukes and the media frame it as a "vote for war."

But what I still don't understand is that Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, and Pelosi have said they were proud to vote against it and casting it as the best vote of their careers. Are they conceding that it was a vote against the war and playing into the left's (and media's) wishes?:shrug:

I know Bush would have gone to Iraq without it anyway. This is Bush's War period.

I am glad that Kerry took responsibility for his vote (though it is Bush's fault:grr: ). Now he and others want to bring the troops home and I am all for it.







:patriot:

[JI7]

1. people gave different reasons

Bob Graham who gets a lot of praise for voting against it did so because he wasn't tough enough. not because he was anti war.

it's important to listen to the reasons people gave. including Bush when he said it was not a vote for war. of course he was going to go in anyways. just as he would have gone in with Biden Lugar or no vote at all.

Kerry consistently criticized Bush for failing in diplomacy and starting the war when he did. there are many who claim to be anti war yet didn't want Kerry to speak out against Bush. just as those who say "too little too late" when Kerry proposes a withdrawal. how the fuck is it "too little too late" . the war is still going on . do these people care whether we get out of Iraq or not or would they rather debate about how much more anti war they are than anyone else. there are a lot of phonies out there including the hero of many of those on the left Pat BUchanan who is blaming Dems and not Bush.

btw, Murtha voted for the IWR also. is it "too little too late" for what he is doing now.

a lot of the attacks against Kerry have to do with the Primary. those bitter that he beat their candidate and those who don't want him to run in 2008.

it's funny how they continuously attack Hillary for her pro war comments yet when Kerry does something different they bash him also. some people are just looking to be assholes. fuck them.

i don't care for Kerry's apology for the IWR. i would have voted against it, but i don't need no fucking apology. it's not about ME. the war is still going on and these morons think an apology is more important than his proposal for withdrawal. fuck them all.

[politicasista]

3. Exactly n/t

[JohnKleeb]

8. Yep you're right about Bob Graham

Yeah Murtha never gets the too little, too late bullshit. Maybe I am biased becasue I like Kerry but I think a lot of the virthol directed at him is not because he voted for the IWR but because he beat their candidates in the primaries.

[karynnj]

2. I agree with all your points - that's a really nice summary

I think when Kennedy, Feingold etc say that, they mean it in the sense that they do not have their name associated with the war. Some even on the Senate floor - Byrd, for one - saw it as a vote that allowed war.

I think there were likely 100 different reasons for votes. Kerry knows in his heart why he voted as he did, but regardless of his motivation this vote has been used by Bush/Cheney et al to say they had support for war. Oddly, if Kerry would have won, it wouldn't matter - I assume he would have done what he said he would and we might not even be at war in Iraq now. His actions as President would be what is important. As he didn't, Kerry has acknowledged that his vote was wrong and he profoundly regrets it. He has, however, continued when pushed to point out that the vote was for the reasons you mention.

This is not having it both ways - he is saying it was the wrong vote. But he clearly was NOT for the war.

Editted for typing and spelling problems

[politicasista]

4. Thanks. Nice summary yourself n/t

[ginnyinWI]

5. "Bush's War", but --

They're in the process of re-inventing this "war" now, in time for the mid-terms. They're setting up a new "leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" as a justification for why we can't leave--because finally, people are realizing that it was Al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/ll. It's been said that al Zarqawi was trumped up as the "leader", and now that he's gone they need a new enemy in order to justify staying in Iraq.

The Republican frame is that it is a "war" against Al Qaeda. We need to discard this. It's an occupation. We are NOT in "a time of war" and it is not "war in Iraq". The more people believe this, the stronger the Republicans' case is. It's more like "Bush's Illegal Occupation".

[karynnj]

6. Very insightful

We need to point out that even if we're not still at war in Iraq, we would still take action against Al Qaeda cells. (Writing the first sentence was awkward. Who are we at war with? We say war in Iraq, because it becomes obvious that it's an occupation when you can't say who you are at war with.

[ginnyinWI]

9. It's all about frames.

We have to guard against using theirs.

I've expanded on it a bit more in other posts (see my journal). We are an occupier, because the Iraqis aren't the enemy and we are trying (in vain) to just keep the peace and establish security. That's an occupation. The only ones who are enemies are that 5% who are foreign-born terrorists--and they can be anywhere. Zarqawi was a Jordanian.

I think about how it would look if we chose, say, Germany--and decided that we would fight our enemy, Al Qaeda, "over there so we wouldn't have to fight them here". Drop some bombs on Frankfurt because there might be a few terrorist cells there. Think of the outcry! But if it's an Arab country, it's seemingly OK.

[Dr Ron]

7. IWR Vote Came up yet again today--at CBS's web site

Discussed (and Kerry defended) here:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3344