I wish Kerry would have made this list

[politicasista]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x514656

I know, I have been cynical and somewhat pessismistic of late (with the way the country is today). I always hate talking about the war around my family cause they always ask what were Dems thinking in supporting Bush.

[JI7]

1. it doesn't matter

Bush would have gone to war anyways . what matters is where Kerry stood and he consistently criticized what Bush was doing. some on the left who didn't care about whether we went to war and more about how purely anti war they were didn't like it when Kerry criticized Bush and spoke out against what he was doing.

[politicasista]

2. I know Kerry criticized Bush for the war,

but the end result will be that he voted to give the authority to Bush to go to war. As BLM has said, I am not letting Bush off the hook, but some have argued with me that why would Kerry criticize the war, when he voted for authority? Am I missing something?:shrug:

[JI7]

3. because the vote was for a process

and rather than hold Bush accountable for NOT doing what the vote authorized some would rather let Bush off the hook.

the vote called for a process that Bush did not follow.

Hans Blix said Saddam would not have cooperated without the threat of force. and Hans Blix was also critical of the way Bush went about it.

just like Kerry voted for going into Afghanistan and has also been critical of Bush's handling of it.

[politicasista]

4. Don't get me wrong, I am glad he is holding Bush accountable

but how could he not see what Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, and the Congressional Black Caucus saw? They too have been critical of Bush's handling of the war, but they all voted NO (and they were proud of it).

[JI7]

5. what did they see ?

Boxer herself has attacked Bush for not following the IWR. the problem is that people start witht he assumption that the IWR vote is a vote to support war when it wasn't so clear and simple. there were many other requirements in it which Bush did not follow.

[politicasista]

6. They saw and knew that Bush wasn't going to follow through

I remember Boxer and Congresswoman Barbara Lee saying that the IWR was one of the best votes they cast in the political careers. After reading your replies, I do agree with your assumption about Boxer and her attacking Bush for not following on the IWR.

I guess I am just looking for Kerry (I am not singling him out or anything) and Dems to just come out and hammer home that he doesn't/didn't support this war, and as BLM has stated what the IWR really was. Many Americans don't know that it would have prevented war, just that the media told them that it's a vote/support FOR war. I think that's why there is so much Kerry hatred in the blogosphere. :shrug:

[JI7]

8. no, that's not why there is so much Kerry hatred on the blogosphere

Kerry hatred is more similar to the attacks Sherrod Brown has been getting. the fact Sherrod Brown voted against the IWR means nothing to certain people who claimed that was a big issue for them.

[politicasista]

13. True n/t

[ProSense]

16. The only relevance the IWR has now is that

it clearly shows Bush's pattern for breaking the law.


The IWR theory has been blown out of the water so many times, I can't believe people (detractors) are still trying to make it float.

[Vektor]

7. Also, politicasista...

Kerry voted to give Bush authorization to go to war as a LAST resort, in the event that Iraq really did prove an imminent threat, and they did not cooperate with the weapons inspections that were going to occur, or if they were found to have the capability to use weapons of mass destruction, and were planning to do so against us.

There were many things that were supposed to occur before we went to war, and many promises were made by Bush et al, that war would be something that would be an absolute last option. The way the legislation was penned, it was not just a free pass to go to war, no questions asked. It was a LAST RESORT.

Also, one of the conditions was to be that we had global support - that the world community was supposed to agree that war was unavoidable and would help us out in Iraq if need be.

When Kerry voted yes, he did not just vote to "go to war" - there was a lot of other stuff that was supposed to happen prior to military action.

The problem is, BUSH betrayed the country, the Congress, and the world community by barging into Iraq, cannons blazing, almost unilaterally, and attacking unprovoked.

There will always be critics that will say "What the hell was wrong with Kerry to trust Bush to do the right thing in the first place?" To them I say "A large majority of Congress also trusted him, and yes, he betrayed that trust. HOWEVER - putting one's trust in someone who fails to uphold their end of the bargain does not make the one doing the trusting a bad person - the one betraying that trust is in the wrong. Taking someone's word that they will do the right thing makes you a decent person, not a bad one."

Yes, Bush lied. Kerry and the others learned from it. Chances are, they haven't put an ounce of faith in him since. Live and learn.

The important thing to remember is Kerry and his colleagues were betrayed. For trusting that the President would honor the agreement of the IWR. They were the ones who got screwed over.

I hope this helps. :hug:

[JI7]

9. another thing is Bush would have went anyways

there is an assumption that Bush would not have gone and it all came down to the IWR. if the issue is about trusting Bush. then why trust him conduct a war on terrorism by supporting the war in AFghanistan ?

Kerry on the other hand does what he thinks is write and lays it all out. yeah, he voted for going into Afghanistan but at the same time he will be critical of the way Bush is handling it. the same way he voted for IWR and will hold Bush accountable for not following it.

[Vektor]

10. Right, and that's fair.

You authorize someone to do a job, you expect it to be done right.

[politicasista]

12. It does n/t

:grouphug: :hi:

[frogmarch]

11. Also, I think Kerry

and the other senators who voted yes on the IWR were influenced by Colin Powell's UNSC presentation, which was quite convincing - partly because Powell himself apparently believed the info was accurate.

The bottom line is that Kerry and the others didn't vote yes on going to war. They voted to give the president the authority to do so as a last resort. They did the right thing, in my opinion, but Bushco abused that authority.

[politicasista]

14. Thanks for the pick me up facts everyone

I am just so mad over all of Bush's f!ck ups right now that I have a habit of being repetitive with thoughts. :banghead:

[Mass]

18. The problem is that people are focusing on THIS vote and ignoring votes

that had as drastic consequences in some people lives (actually more because the IWR by itself did not force people to go to war, while the Energy Bill directly hurts people health).

[ProSense]

15. Not my thank you list. Eight people on that list vote

Voted against the filibuster and for Alito:

Conrad (D-ND)
Byrd (D-WV)
Johnson (D-SD)
Nelson (D-NE)


Vote against the filibuster:

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Chafee (R-RI)
Inouye (D-HI)



Bush could have and would have gone to war anyway.

[Mass]

17. Not on my thank you list - These two votes are more criminal as the IWR

just not as fancy.

Voted for the Bankruptcy Act

Byrd
Chafee
Inouye


Voted for the Energy Bill

Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Levin (D-MI)

[TayTay]

19. I liked Kerry's reasons, but they are very logical and structured

reasons for voting for that IWR vote. (I had big problems with that vote back in 2002, but have let it go so to speak since. I think the Senate was lied to and Colin Powell was lied to by an Admin that was determined to go to war no matter what the Congress or the CIA or anyone else said.)

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.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what ``relevant'' U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said:

The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee:

That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said:

Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

US Senate Floor debate on the IWR, Oct 9, 2002

The areas I marked with bold are items that I think are really important. I really think that Sen. Kerry believed that the President had the Constitutional authority to take action to protect the nation in the event of an imminent threat. (At the time, the WMD argument was regarded as an 'imminent threat.' I think this is something a PResident Kerry would have regarded as a cherished power of the executive branch and would have been loath to dismiss outright.

[Dr Ron]

20. Ignore it

Just be happy it didn't turn into bashing Kerry for voting yes.

We know that the vote on the IWR is not a good litmus test to differentiate those who supported versus opposed the war. It's best to ignore this, and at other times discuss Kerry's long standing opposition to unjust wars, including Iraq.

[karynnj]

21. I agree with you - especially as it didn't turn into a bash Kerry thread

Part of the problem is that Kerry WAS different from the vast majority of the others who voted for it. If there were a spectrum of where people stood, he would likely have been right at the border line. But the vote is a yes/no categorization.

I think the problem is that the majority of the Democrats who voted for it were pro-war, in that they - unlike Kerry - didn't speak out when the inspectors were finding nothing and Bush was speaking of invading. (I think Harkin spoke out shortly after the invasion, but I have read of no one else.) In fact, Kerry's speaking out before the invasion to me makes the comments that he voted for political reasons obviously false - if that were the case he wouldn't have spoke out but stayed quiet to get credit for being on the right side when it was a cake walk.

[Dr Ron]

22. A trap which few beyond Kerry recognized

Based upon other comments from Kerry on the vote I do think he was looking at the political ramifications--but not in a bad way.

The vote was a Rove trap. We saw that when Kerry voted yes, they twisted it to mean Kerry supported the war, and was subsequently flip flopping.

What most forget (but Kerry pointed out) is that at the time of the vote Bush was saying that this was not a vote to go to war, but a vote that meant American stood together.

If the Democratic nominee had voted no, they would have replayed that over and over. They would have said the Democrat was not willing to use force under any circumstance, even if America was proven to be under immenent threat of attack from nuclear weapons from Iraq.

Kerry had said that the choices were yes, but or no, but. He tried to avoid this trap by voting yes, but also spelling out the circumstances under which war would and would not be appropriate. At the same time he had an op-ed in the NY Times (reprinted in Foreign Affairs) which argued against going to war. He had many other statements against going to war prior to the war, such as his Georgetown speech. At the onset of the war he protested, calling for regime change in the United States.

Kerry's strategy almost worked politically. Prior to the Dean campaign taking off, media accounds did list Kerry as an anti-war candidate. Then Dean realized he had to distinguish himself from the other New England liberal with a stronger anti-war record, and saw (or more likely Joe Trippi saw) the benefits of getting the anti-war movement behind him. It wasn't until the Dean campaign made an issue out of the IWR that the media began to call Kerry a pro-war candidate.

[jillan]

23. something else to remember...

Bush said a vote for war was a vote for peace.
(How ridiculous that sounds now)

Yes. Kerry made a mistake.
The mistake wasn't that he voted for the war.
The mistake was that he believed bsh.

[politicasista]

24. Thanks for the good replies.

They have been really helpful. :hi: