Hillary/Kerry didn't support the Iraq invasion. Stop being a rePUKE tool.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

The Democratic supported the use of force in the even the inspections didn't work. Idiot Son didn't allow enough time to LET THE INSPECTIONS WORK because he feared the truth getting out about NO WMD before he got his bullshit war started.

Clintion (President not Hillary) always says "I thought he should have given the inspections time to work" when he's accused of supporting Idiot Son's invasion.

DUers should stop being the useful idiots of the rePUKE fucktards and Tweety by saying the Democrats "voted for the war."

It was RUSHING INTO WAR stupid, not authorizing force in case it was needed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Go read Senator Byrd's remarks...

before the Senate on the IRW and then tell me that.

[mtnsnake]

2. Thank you n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. RePUKES rely on the public to be too STUPID to know the difference. DUers

DUers shouldn't help rePUKES advance propaganda and lies.

[sui generis]

20. my opinion, not RW propaganda

is that our leadership had better think really long and hard before giving the president unfettered powers to go to war.

Kerry and Clinton had a moral duty to our soldiers and to us to deeply question, and if there were too many questions, to withhold that vote.

They did not - they rolled the dice. Sure, Kerry gave a big long agonizing speech for the recordbooks, but his actions were not to act on his intellect.

That's not propaganda or lies. It's criticism.

[paulk]

29. they didn't give "unfettered" powers

the IWR was conditional and Bush clearly violated those conditions.

Which he should be impeached for doing...

Criticize if you like, but don't mischaracterize

[sui generis]

31. not mischaracterizing

if he "clearly" violated conditions then he should be very easy to impeach. Why hasn't it happened?

Anyway, I remember that he said even knowing now what he knew then he would do it again.

Perhaps that was taken out of context or somebody has a perfectly rational spin to put on it, but I spikki the good Anglisch and have ears and brain too.

This isn't Kerry bashing. We should certainly be allowed to discuss what we perceive are his faults. If we have a bad perception, please feel free to correct it with facts, however, merely flouncing around and saying that we're "mischaracterizing" or "repeating talking points" is not very constructive on your part.

[xchrom]

3. i love these...

:popcorn:

[sui generis]

21. scoot over

:popcorn:

hey!!! somebody put white cheddar mine. anyone for some nachos?

[xchrom]

32. did you say nachos?!?

i'll share my white cheddar -- can i have some nachos?
please?
:popcorn:

[sui generis]

34. sure - I got the kind with meat, hope you don't mind

[seabeyond]

4. i dont have a problem with iwr vote like others. i do want to better

understand hillary's position. i do understand kerry's. i can support kerry. i dont know if i can hillary. i would like to know, is she opposed to permanent bases? for example. what he and bill have said, makes me wonder about her position. that is what is important to me

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. The right question is would the democrat have started the Iraq war

the answer is NO if it was Hillary and NO if it was Kerry and NO if it was Gore and NO if it was any of the other democratic senators who voted for the IWR except maybe Lieberman

[seabeyond]

9. i can go with that. on the irw. the right question now is.... are you

for permanent bases now. yes or no

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. No but it's not an election deal breaker. No fucking way. nt

nt

[seabeyond]

14. dont be telling me. hey,....... if i have choice from repug, or hillary

who supports permanent bases i will still vote hillary. but i wont support her as a primary candidate that is for sure, firstly..... secondly

why cant i have the answer. what is this shit? do you know? is she for permanent base? why wont you say? if this isnt like talking to mcclelland

[Proud2BAmurkin]

18. I don't know if she is or not and all things being equal

I'd support a primary opponent of bases if both were equally strong candidates

[seabeyond]

24. i would be reasonable about it. i will take our smart, thinking dems

over any repug. any day. i dont know one of our dems i would dismiss, i like our dems. but...... i do want to know what is up with hillary. i have a trust issue with her. we had her husband for 8 years, and there are things i have heard the two say over last 5 years that really brings questions to my mind. and really enough with the bush and clinton dynasty. i dont like that either

[Walt Starr]

7. Kerry is redeaming himself

Tell me Hillary's latest denuciation of the war.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. It's not about denouncing the war it's about whether she'd start it

No democrat would have started the Iraq war WHEN Idiot Son did, before the inspections showed no WMD

[Walt Starr]

38. Sorry, that's dissembling the issue

She voted in favor of the IWR. She has yet to state emphatically that if she knew then what she knew now (i.e. Bush mislead us on the intelligence) should would not have voted in favor of it.

Kerry has done that, she has not. Ergo, Kerry does not support the war but Hillary does.

[mtnsnake]

17. Walt, how did Kerry "denounce" the war?

I'm not doubting you that he did. I just having heard it so please fill me in.

All I've heard Kerry say is that he wants 20,000 troops home over the holidays and that, folks, isn't enough. What's even worse is that Kerry is calling for a "concrete plan" in Iraq. That's denouncing the war?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. Look denouncing after the fact is a DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES

than "supporting the war" which he didn't do. If KERRY was somehow able to make the decision in march 2003 there would NOT BE an Iraq invasion.

[mattclearing]

8. Read the Iraq War Resolution.

Check the roll call.

You are mistaken.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. rePUKES can always count on democrats to accept their framing of debates

IWR is classic case

[mattclearing]

16. Read and learn.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

-------------------------------

Kerry and Clinton wanted to be seen as tough on security, so they voted for it. Nowhere in the Iraq War resolution does it say that Bush's invasion power is contingent on anything the UN does or says. It refers to UN resolutions which were pre-existing from long before Colin Powell went to the UN. Bush was pushing to enforce old resolutions, and to add new resolutions.

Long story short, Dems voted to give Bush unlimited authority to use the armed forces in Iraq, regardless of what they said they voted for, regardless of what Bush and the Republicans said the resolution meant.

If you actually read the document, it essentially says, "It would be nice to find WMD or get UN approval, but regardless, we grant the president full authority to use the US armed forces as he sees fit in Iraq."

But go ahead, accuse me of spouting Republican talking points.

:eyes:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. The key word is "necessary" actions

Idiot Son stated he was not dead set on war and up until the day of the invasion said there could be a peaceful outcome

I agree the dems DID give unlimited authority but it was what a statemsan should do in normal circumstances, they can't be blamed for the fact that they were dealing with a FUCKUP.

Put the blame where it belongs not on senators who did something they SHOULD do (give the president leverage to get a result)

[mattclearing]

28. But if you or I were looking at this resolution, would we have voted aye?

Of course not.

I'm all for defending our Dems when they do good, but they let us down here in a big way.

This vote was the single biggest stumbling block Kerry had in last year's election, despite the fact that he arguably did it to gain credibility on national security issues, lest he be branded an antiwar lefty.

When Kerry says he trusted Bush and was misled, I don't believe him. Does anyone honestly believe after Vietnam, BCCI and everything else Kerry has learned from over the course of his life, that he was naive enough to trust George Bush?

He did it because he thought it would help him become President. Who knows, maybe it did. The poll results of last year's election are a bit murky.

I'm not into fighting over this. I think Kerry fucked up big with this vote. It's an incredibly cynical vote, any way you look at it.

[aquart]

12. sorry. it was a disingenuously naive vote.

they worried how it would play, not how it would play out. if i knew it gave george permission to gallop ahead, it was ridiculous that they didn't.

you can argue the language till the cows come home. the reality is that anyone who knew george knew it was blanket permission. if they knew less about george than i did, they should not be holding office.

they were concerned that the media would paint them as pro-terror and unpatriotic, so they stood aside and let our soldiers be killed. they stood aside and let the middle east be dangerously destabilized because they didn't have the guts to call an invasion of a country that never attacked us a violation of everything we stand for, or thought we stood for.

they thought they were being pragmatic. it was cowardice.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

15. Nope, it was based on providing leverage

They shouldn't be blamed for casting a vote that any senator in any situation should be able to cast (supporting force if necessary) just because they were dealing with an IDIOT who intended to invade no matter what.

They were trying to be statesmen when they were dealing with Little Lord Pissypants who was an idiot out of his depth

[aquart]

35. you don't hand an idiot a loaded gun.

which is what they did. statesmen, my ass.

they were covering their asses and now the republicans are having a field day saying look look, the dems were for it just as much as we were. we gave them the ammunition and they're using it. and we deserve to have our cowardly gutless asses full of buckshot.

yeah, in general it's a reasonable vote. but it's also a case by case circumstance and they should have known the true circumstances. not for one second do i believe they were as ignorant as they claim. they didn't want the bad press. let's face it, the right wing media is pretty lethal. but new york senators should have felt some security in refusing to take that bait. so should a senator from massachusetts.

we have accountability for our votes. our people voted for that war. we have earned every ounce of opprobrium, every drop of guilt that accrues to the decision to be 'statesmen.' invading a nation that has not attacked us is wrong. it remains wrong forever.

[second edition]

19. I always understood kerry's position and vote. He made his concernss

about the IWR known on the senate floor. It's a shame he has been misunderstood on this.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. Agree, it's lazy to accept the Chris Matthews version of events

most democrats GAVE UP and accepted the meme that "democrats voted for the war."

[seabeyond]

26. purposely by many. it isnt hard to understand. i am not a genius

but pretty clear to me. if i can get it, i have to figure most are capable. if they dont, i get to figure they just dont want to cause it doesnt go with the storyline they have created of kerry

[Proud2BAmurkin]

27. exactly, the Fox news narrative

hook line and sinker

[froshty1960]

30. For years...

the Repugs have denounced Democrats, accusing them of lying and being out of touch with the mainstream, ordering their followers not to listen to anything Dems have to say and telling the world that Dems are just a bunch of librul nuts. But now that the war is unpopular, they're saying, "Democrats voted for the war, too..." Aren't they then telling the world that they're doing just what they tell their followers not to do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The VichyDems should stop being the tools of Bush.

As usual, the apologists overlook the fact that even if Saddam had WMD it was still not reason enough to invade a sovereign country and slaughter it's people.

The collaborated with BushCo in the murders. Now, when the polls show that the country's mood has turned against the war and occupation they are busily trying to cover their sorry asses by playing dumb.

[aquart]

37. Exactly. They voted for a pre-emptive invasion.

They accepted the policy with that vote.

Well, I don't accept the policy. (Good grief, my shift key has decided to work again.)

I was aghast when my senators collaborated with this administration. I still am.

Their rationalizations don't impress me in the slightest.

[MadHound]

36. Sorry friend, but voting to authorize a war

Is supporting the invasion. In addition, both Clinton and Kerry have repeatedly stated that they would favor the addition of more troops in Iraq, and both have repeatedly voted in favor of the funding for said war.

They weren't duped as some like to claim, and if they were, then they are too damn stupid to serve in public office. No, what they did was a politically expedient vote in order to not appear weak on terrorism. However in doing so they failed to perform the primary job duty of any represenative in a represenative democracy, being the voice of their collective constituency.

In the run up to the IWR vote, messages(and there were millions of them) to the Hill were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions upon millions of people were out in the streets of the United States saying NO to the IWR. Each and every major poll in this country showed that the American people were not in favor of taking any action, including the IWR, until the inspectors finished their job. If Clinton and Kerry and the other pro-war folks had just done their damn job and been the voice for their constituency, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. But they failed in their job duty, and tens of thousands of innocents have paid the ultimate price for their political games.

You say that Bushco was rushing to war, you're damn right he was rushing to war. And the Democrats had the perfect opportunity to stop that headlong rush to war by voting no on the IWR. Instead they co-operated with Bush's rush to war. The lame excuse that they couldn't have known that Bush would have moved as quick as he did is just that, lame. If I knew what Bush was going to do, and if millions of my fellow Americans knew the same without the benefit of any of the political insight one gets one the Hill, then Clinton and Kerry damn well knew too, yet they simply ignored that for their own political expediency.

Many many people around here want a change in our party and our government. Well the only way you can effect change in our political system is to hold your so called leaders when you step into the voting booth. It is time to stop giving these war mongers who continue to fund this illegal and immoral occupation a pass simply because of the D behind their name. This is what primaries are for, and if you want to effect change, hold both Clinton and Kerry responsible when their primaries come around. Continuing to reward them for their war mongering ways just means that you will have blood on your hands too.