I'd still rather have Kerry in the White House, but... (Kerry said to weigh politics in 2002 vote)

[BurtWorm]

This brings back bad memories. Of course, you have to wonder why the Globe feels the need to keep kicking Kerry--and on Memorial Day of all days.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/28/kerry_said_to_weigh_politics_in_2002_vote?mode=PF



He <Bob Shrum> writes that Kerry telephoned him on the eve of the Oct. 11, 2002, vote. Shrum said Kerry was skeptical of Bush's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that he "didn't trust Bush to give the diplomatic route a real chance." Nonetheless, Kerry asked Shrum whether he would "be a viable general election candidate if he was in the small minority of senators who voted no."

Shrum wrote that he told Kerry it was "impossible to predict the political fallout if we went to war." But he wrote that Jim Jordan, Kerry's former Senate press secretary and future campaign manager, "was insisting that he had to vote with Bush."

Shrum wrote that Jordan had "hammered" Kerry with a warning: "Go ahead and vote against it if you want, but you'll never be president of the United States." Kerry voted for the war resolution and Jordan became Kerry's campaign manager three months later.

...

Kerry, however, thought the Iraq war would be over quickly, Shrum wrote, adding that the senator said to him that "whatever misgivings he had about Bush's course, the Iraq war, if it came, probably, almost certainly, would be over by the primaries."

...

Kerry's chief of staff, David McKean, said he walked with Kerry to the Senate floor before the vote. He recalled telling the senator: "Obviously a huge factor here is whether you believe there are weapons of mass destruction. He said, 'I have no doubt about that.' "

...

[ProSense]

1. Here's a message for

Shrum.

[rox63]

2. There isn't a single Senator or Congress-critter that didn't weigh the politics of their vote

I'm sure they weighed it with other factors, but they are all politicians. And politicians are concerned about the politics of everything they do. Kerry has repeatedly said in the last few years that he regrets that vote, and considers it to have been a grave mistake. He is one of those pushing the hardest for an end to this war. Besides being politicians, all members of Congress are also imperfect human beings. The best we can hope for from them is that they recognize when they have made a mistake, and that they try to make it right. Kerry has been trying to do that for quite some time now.

[INdemo]

4. John Kerry is still better qualified for President than any of the Candidates so far

Now if Gore should enter the race then perhaps I would change my mind.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. You've got that right!

I was able to support Kerry wholeheartedly in 2004. This time around there aren't any of them that unqualifiedly inspire my confidence. I agree with you on Gore. I've got my fingers crossed.

[politicasista]

9. I am with you and INDemo

:hi:

[BurtWorm]

5. What you say is fair, but not the whole story.

This vote was taken almost two years after George Bush and Karl Rove muscled their way into "winning" the White House. It was taken after a summer when the administration made clear it was gunning for war in Iraq no matter what anyone said. Kerry's actions seem to be that of someone who was taking for granted the Bush regime's claims of legitimacy and its willingness to play by the rules of the game. But if ever there was an instance to yield to skepticism about the Bushists' intentions, this vote was it. Shrum describes a person more concerned about what the vote would do for his chances in the primaries than about its real meaning, which as most of the world could have told him then meant carte blanche for Bush to have his war with Iraq on any terms he liked. It's difficult for me not to be disappointed (to say the least) with Kerry's decision or the process that led to it.

[rox63]

7. The vote was purposely set up by the WH as a trap

It was shortly before a critical mid-term election. Most people believed that Saddam had WMDs. The country was still recovering from the shock of 9/11. At the time, it looked like the requirements in the bill of going to the UN and getting the inspectors into Iraq would keep Bush from going to war without a good reason. Most people weren't aware yet of how the intel had been manipulated, and that * was such a blatant liar. Kerry also consulted with Kofi Annan, Colin Powell, and other folks who were supposedly in the know. This decision was not entirely based on politics. But politics did play a role, for all of those who voted on this, not just for Kerry.

[BurtWorm]

11. Were you aware that the vote was a trap?

So was I. Why wasn't Kerry? Why did he allow himself to fall into it? I'll never understand it. It looks like he bought the argument that voting against IWR wouldn't get him anything.

[rox63]

19. It was set up so that a vote either way would hurt Dems

Remember, at that time most of the country was convinced (by * admin propaganda) that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

[ProSense]

10. Shrum's point doesn't make any sense given Kerry's very public statement on the Senate floor:

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip...

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

[BurtWorm]

12. "a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief."

So why vote for something you think is unnecessary?

[ProSense]

13. The authorization was

a limiting document, which Bush used a signing statement to override:

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

link

Also see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=993133&mesg_id=993133">this.

[karynnj]

16. For the reasons he gave for years

To give Bush leverage with Saddam and the UN
To as Bush said to show we are altogether in demanding Saddam disarm.

He is saying that under that condition, the President can already lauch an attack. Note that the uproar in the summer - which Kerry was a loud voice in - was to persuade Bush from attacking, which they knew he could do - although he shouldn't have. (The DSM refer to even rigging a provocation.)

[karynnj]

15. That may be because Shrum was most concerned about the politics

Kerry has consistently given the same reasons for voting for it. He also spoke agaisnt going to war in January 2003 before the war started. That would put into question some of Shrum's comments. The real question is what is in this for Shrum and why is he doing this.

In Kerry's IWR speech, it is clear that he felt that he and the Democrats had made progress in getting Bush to agree to go to the UN and to Congress - when in the summer he was speaking of going alone, if necessary, under the 2001 authorization. Kerry, at the end of the speech, laid out what Bush had said (quoting public statements) and he said he would speak out if Bush broke his promises and he did. (when many others now giving Kerry's reason, didn't.)

He then repeated the same rationale throughout 2004. Only in Oct 2005 - after it was clear that Bush had lied - did Kerry say that his vote was wrong, that he was wrong to give that trust to Bush. He did however consistently say he would not have gone to war.

Shrum was not with Kerry then, Jordan who Kerry fired was. I don't understand why you accept as truth Shrum's account and reject what Kerry and his staff have said for years.

[BurtWorm]

18. I felt the same was about the "progress" Dems made getting Bush to the UN

as I did about the "victory" Rahm Emanuel crowed about with the supplemental cave-in last week.

[karynnj]

20. It was more substantial

In summer 2002, the likelihood was that war was inevitable and would start as soon as we had everyuthing in place.

After Bush went to the UN and got invasive inspections and was even destroying missiles, I definately thought that public opinion could continue to mount and maybe Bush would declare victory. What is odd is that any other President would have done this. At that point, Bush could have institued some permanent monitoring and then lifted sanctions, possibly after Saddam fell. Even without the later that would end up meaning he handled Iraq better than his dad and Clinton. (Imagine liberals dealing with Bush blaming the impact of sanctions on Clinton.

[BurtWorm]

22. The clue that Bush would do what he wanted could be found in November 2000.

And all of his behavior since then. Nothing suggests now or ever suggested that Bush and the Bushists gave one shit about anything but their desires.

[blm]

3. Most people who paid attention to Iraqgate knew Bush1 gave Saddam WMDs but

what was NOT KNOWN in Oct2002 was whether or not all those WMDS Saddam had were removed or destroyed.

That is why once the weapon inspectors started reporting back, Kerry said Bush should not use force because the inspections were proving military force was NOT NEEDED.

Too many Dems stayed on the sideline for that fight - Bush VIOLATED the IWRs weapon inspection guidelines to have his war.

[sallyseven]

6. Shrum is probably covering his ass.

I have never liked him he is so full of himself. Thinks he is so wonderful. I can't can't stand him.

[veniceboy]

14. I knew this already-

Kerry wasn't alone making this calculated decision, but it doesn't execuse it.

[karynnj]

21. So you believe Shrum over Kerry and his staff?

[karynnj]

17. Well, at least we can see that he is not trying to get hired by a 2008 candidate

He has told stories now on Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards from these accounts - and I haven't seen the book.

I hope Kerry does respond - he is in the better position (in comparison to most IWR voters) in that he did speak against going to war in early 2003. That alone makes this story unlikely.

Also, consider how accurate any recalled conversation is years later - and here there's Jordan relating a story to Shrum - each of with add an error term when they recount the story.

Compared to: Kerry's speech at the time and his comment over 2002 - 2007 that always give the same reason. The only thing that changed is that in 2005, in an obviously difficult to make statement he said he was wrong to trust Bush and later that the vote was wrong.

[The Stranger]

23. John Kerry played softball with his "this President took his eye off the ball," and he failed.

He should have called out the traitor and his Neocons, but he went soft and they made him pay. He had one shot at the White House and will never have another.