General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJohn Kerry voted to wage war against Iraq
Is that what we really want in our top diplomat?
How 'bout we give peace a chance?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(172,828 posts)what am I missing?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Seems like they have better judgement for this type of thing.
Skittles
(172,828 posts)I don't get it
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)death in their hands. So long as they have a 'D' after their names, we just look the other way.
That decision was one of the most important of his entire political career and he got it wrong. In life and death decisions like that, there should be no room for error.
You are correct that more Dems voted against it, their judgement was far superior. Surely one of them might be considered for the job of SOS?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It was not impossible to discern the right answer.
jsr
(7,712 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Get on record, folks.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I hope she picks Obama's next SOS because, evidently, he can't think for himself.
Oops, wrong thread!
The drama: People are attacking the President, the left, the right, Kerry, Rice and Geithner (that never stops).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)colored glasses ever since Bush left the WH.
Hillary has not been the best SOS ever. She has supported every undeclared war and you need to go outside the US to find out what people think of our warmongering and drone killings etc.
There are more Dems who got it right on the Iraq War, than got it wrong. They had a hugely important decision to make with so many lives at stake and they got it right the first time.
Those who got it wrong cost so much in terms of lives lost. For such a decision there are no second chances. I prefer people who don't make those kinds of mistakes running things in this country.
I remember the night of that vote and I fully expected every Dem to vote 'no'. I listened to Sen. Byrd's incredible speech. He was one of the few, and perhaps the last, to show concern for the Iraqi people. And after his speech, Hillary who I had met and loved at that time, shocked me with her vote. She sounded so hollow and insincere after Byrd's inspiring and defiant speech against that awful war.
I lost respect for her that night and have never changed my mind. I hope she listened to Bishop Tutu's comments on her statement after the war crime in Libya which shocked the world.
We have better Dems, Dems who stood up against Bush's lies. But it's always the war supporters who get these jobs. That ought to tell us something.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But I have no problem with a SoS that was vocally against the Iraq war from start to the finish. I would even like a pick that opposed Iraq and Afghanistan. The Defense Department has enough hawks. The State Department would do well to have someone more diplomatic and less aggressive.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It was sarcasm.
"There are more Dems who got it right on the Iraq War, than got it wrong. They had a hugely important decision to make with so many lives at stake and they got it right the first time. "
Yeah Levin was one, and he voted against Kerry-Feingold. Corzine was another, and now he's no longer my Governor.
As for the IWR, Bush lied. He lied leading up to the IWR vote, and the faulty intelligence convinced a lot of Senators, who all bought into the WMD lie. Do you really think that if either the Byrd, Durbin or Levin amendments had passed the situation wouldn't have been the same?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232
Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war. And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold got 13 votes.
The notion that anyone got it "right" based on the IWR vote is absurd. Bush lied after the IWR and illegally invaded Iraq. That is the fact.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Why?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm
While Kerry never let up on Bush, there were other Democrats who did initially.
Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
Dear Chairman Dean,
<...>
That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-21.htm
Bush lied. He lied leading up to the IWR vote, and the faulty intelligence convinced a lot of Senators.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232
Bush lied after the IWR and illegally invaded Iraq.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)While most Democrats voted against war?
Are you claiming that Dr. Dean was similarly in favor of starting a war with Iraq?
Please: be simple and clear.
karynnj
(61,090 posts)He also proposed a resoltion of his own:
Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.
[
HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879
(I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.
Dean said he would support Biden/Lugar, Kerry's preferred resolution and there was no quote I could find in 2002 where Dean said before or even shortly after the IWR that he would vote against it. Both Kerry and Dean ruled out invasion for regime change. The biggest difference was that Kerry had to vote.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Personally, and I believe I share the belief of millions, that the whole 911-Afghanistan-Iraq war was bullcrap.
So, what's your take? It appears you have a distinct thought on this and Kerry. I am neither pro or con Kerry... Just want to know
where your thoughts are...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I've watched him become a standard-issue DLC Third Wayer.
My new Junior Senator is more to my liking.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What a bunch of nonsense.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/11/11/election-over-talk-mass-turns-next-one/S6E4eXHZgddYlpghbNXI4H/story.html
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)America is probably at it's lowest point in history.
All the corruption and the fundamental attack on our democracy, our civilization and our planet...
We need to focus our inherent yet difficult goal of human civilization.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But 22 did make the correct call on this grave bill.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)These are, for the most part, intelligent, savvy people. They don't know anything about the proven lies/coordinated PR campaign that got us into the first Gulf War? They don't know anything about the Gulf of Tonkin?
And, besides all that, there were plenty of reputable critics questioning the validity of the Bush's and Powell's "evidence" at the time.
You'd think there would be a healthier sense of skepticism among these people. Personally, I think there probably is, but most of those who went along with the invasion of Iraq did so because of the politically toxic post-911 world at the time.
spanone
(142,051 posts)
bigtree
(94,658 posts)You left out almost 99% of Kerry's life experiences. Dishonest; even in your statement of his views on the Iraq war.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Perhaps the single most important decision that any politician ever makes?
bigtree
(94,658 posts)DU overwhelmingly supported John Kerry for President. Making like the Iraq vote was disqualifying is a deliberate diversion from the entirety of the Senator's record and life experience. it's always interesting to see the intense and deliberate way some here work to undermine and distort the record of our Democrats. I think it's worthy of the actual opposing party's efforts. You'll find plenty of republicans working to do exactly the same thing you're doing here. One distortion is as good as another.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And having seen first hand how intelligence can be spun and manipulated, this experience will give him an advantage if he becomes Secretary of State as he will know to view this kind of thing very sceptically.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)bigtree
(94,658 posts)you need to do some homework before slinging all of these half-truths of yours around.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"you need to do some homework before slinging all of these half-truths of yours around."
I don't think that means ask for a link, and asking clearly indicates that the comment has merit.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Bigtree claims Kerry said his vote was the worst mistake of his life. Seems like asking for a link is reasonable. If not sensible, of course.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, he's your Senator, and you have no idea what he said?
WTF?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I've always thought of you as very smart, but misguided. But now I'm starting to wonder about the former...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)you should probably accept that the OP point will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not President Obama chooses Kerry.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Having a fondness for war seems to be a prerequisite for the post.
Let's stop this now - I fear that so much bobbing and weaving might be a strain on your heart.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Having a fondness for war seems to be a prerequisite for the post. "
...you be celebrating? You've made the decision for the President.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)If he did I would think it would be easy to provide a link.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,444 posts)Blog post aimed at firming up his antiwar image
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff / October 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Four years to the day after voting to authorize war in Iraq, Senator John F. Kerry yesterday asserted that the vote is his greatest regret of his political career, and said all lawmakers who voted for the war should admit that it was a mistake.
"There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, wrote in a dispatch on the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com. "We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/12/kerry_voices_deep_regret_for_voting_for_iraq_war/
A lot of the article had been posted on DU. You can find it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x106500
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks for that.
BlueCaliDem
(15,444 posts)She's never apologized for cheerleading for the Iraq War. Then again, hubby-Blum and she made out like a bandits.
Dianne Feinstein claims that Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest. There may have been other reasons she actively helped sell Bush's lies to me, at least).
According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.
In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in southern Iraq.
Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence, is reaping the benefits of her husband's investments. The Democratic royal family recently purchased a $16.5 million mansion in the flush Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. It's a disgusting display of war profiteering, and just like Cheney, the leading Democrat should be called out for her offense.
Jesus, I wished enough Californians had the wherewithal to vote for Mike Strimling in the last primaries. He would've been a FAR better Senator than DiFi. Instead, I was forced to vote for her when he got LESS votes than Orly Taitz!
We definitely need term limits. Although many people claim that we already have them for congresscritters because we have elections, they're forgetting that an entrenched senator or representative is almost impossible to remove UNLESS there is a lot of money pitted against them.
Mike was working on a shoestring budget.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Note, it's my article so I am posting the whole thing:
Iraq War -– Six Year Anniversary of what Should have Prevented it
Since 2003, when March 7th comes around I think of all the men, women and children that have died in the Iraq war, all the anger directed at the US by the rest of the world and I think how easily all would have been prevented if we had had a President that was honest, interested in the truth and in doing the right thing. Yes, history records that this latest Iraq war began on March 20, 2003, but the events that should have prevented that war occurred on March 7, 2003.
Let’s go back a bit further. Throughout the early to middle part of 2002, the Bush administration had been making accusations that Iraq possessed and was continuing to seek and manufacture Weapons of Mass Destruction. Much of the US political establishment in both parties believed this to be true. The Iraqi government, led by the despot Saddam Hussein, continually issued denials but those denials were deemed not credible by much of the western press and western governments. If Iraq had nothing to hide, the line of reasoning went, why were they not allowing the UN Weapons inspectors into the country to verify this?
Efforts to get the UN Weapons inspection teams into Iraq intensified as the year went on, culminating in October 10, 2002 with the US congress passing the Iraq War Resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq that authorized then President Bush to go to war in Iraq if necessary to enforce UN Resolutions regarding those weapons. Shortly thereafter on November 8, the UN passed resolution 1441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 calling for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and demands from Iraq a report of the status of its arsenal of WMD.
On November 13, five days after UN Resolution 1441 was passed, Iraq accepted it and allowed the first portion of a new UN Weapons inspection team on the ground fourteen days later.
While this would seem to be a positive turn of events, the Bush administration did strange things once these results had been achieved. They continued to press for military action against Iraq. The US pressed several of its allies to issue statements saying that Iraq is a threat to world security and on February 5, Colin Powell went before the United Nations and issued his now infamous speech about how the US is sure that Iraq has weapons and weapons programs that violate various UN Resolutions.
I want to remind readers that throughout this period, Iraq was contained as few other countries have ever been in history. More than two thirds of Iraqi airspace, the so-called no-fly zones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones were constantly patrolled by American fighter planes. If those patrolling planes detected any hostile activity on the ground or in the air, it was immediately engaged and destroyed. Tens of thousands of US troops also remained on station in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
I make the above points about the situation because it should be clear that Iraq did not pose a conventional military threat to anyone with the world’s most powerful Air Force flying around the clock combat air patrols over two thirds of the country. No, the only danger Iraq could have posed would have been via Weapons of Mass Destruction and even then, the chance was remote that Iraq could prepare for and mount any kind of WMD attack without pre-launch activities alerting allied reconnaissance aircraft thereby resulting in a strike against those facilities before a launch could even be completed.
As of March 7, 2003 the date that will always remain in my mind for the rest of my life, it was shown to be very unlikely that Iraq continued to have any WMD or programs to produce them.
On March 7, 2003, the heads of the two UN Weapons Inspection Teams in Iraq issued reports that showed that no Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found in nearly four months of intensive on site inspections. See http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6 and http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei-7mar03.pdf and http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect . Here are some excerpts:
Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002,
UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.
Top United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council today that over the past month Iraq has displayed "active" or even "proactive" cooperation, which has allowed the inspection process to make significant progress, although a number of key disarmament tasks remained to be resolved.
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to us by Resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its co-operation.
Turning to biological and chemical weapons, Mr. Blix said there was a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of those arms, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. As part of that effort, a disposal site was being now re-excavated, unearthing bombs and fragments, which could allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.
Mr. Blix emphasized that no evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction being moved around by truck, of mobile production units for biological weapons or of underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage, as claimed by intelligence authorities.
-----------------------------
I’ve written numerous articles on the March 7, 2003 weapons inspector reports and talked about them to anyone who seemed interested because it seems unconscionable to me that we went to war using a justification of Weapons of Mass Destruction thirteen days after the UN Weapons inspectors issued these reports saying they hadn’t found any after several months of on the ground inspections.
I had been following the progress of the UN weapons inspectors and the day the reports came out, I talked to several of my friends about them and said it is impossible that the President could take us to war right after these reports.
It is at this point, in my opinion, that going to war and invading Iraq became an unprovoked war of aggression and thus a war crime. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
At the very least, plans to go to war should have been postponed until the Weapons inspectors completed their inspections, after which we would have found out what we instead found out the hard way, that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq anymore and there hadn’t been for some time.
People talk about many things regarding the run-up to the Iraq war, including blame and justification or lack thereof. In my opinion, all the other issues are close to meaningless in the face of the UN Weapons Inspectors reports of March 7, 2003. You can justify everything that all branches of the US Government did up until then. In fact, as I have written several times, if Bush had responded to those reports by calling off the war and declaring victory for his policy of aggressively confronting Saddam Hussein and getting Weapons Inspection Teams back into the country, it would have been an incredible win for his administration and its Iraq policies. Bush would have assured the safety of the country without having had to go to war.
The fact that Bush and his administration went to war anyway less than two weeks after these reports means that something else other than the safety and security of the United States and its allies was behind the administration’s desire to go to war. We can argue about what that might be, but it is irrelevant in terms of International Law as only the exigency of an extreme and immediate threat to one’s country or one’s allies is enough to avoid a first strike attack or invasion being classified as an unprovoked war of aggression. In fact, even that is a stretch of what the relevant UN Charter sections say about war. Then Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan made it clear when asked about the legality of the war by the BBC, “Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
Regarding US Law, the authorization congress gave the President to go to war, see http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf was specific in terms of why and in what circumstances congress gave permission for war. The relevant portion of the Resolution states:
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.
------------------------------
After the reports of March 7, 2003, it is impossible to claim justification on either 1, or 2 above. Iraq could no longer be considered a credible threat to the US or anyone else and was not in material breach of any UN Resolutions. President Bush exceeded his authority and broke both US and International Law when he invaded Iraq.
Supporters of Bush and his administration are fond of saying that history will validate his administration’s decisions including the decision to go to war in Iraq. I think the opposite is more likely. The more historians examine all the events that led up to the war, the worse the decision to go to war is going to appear. I would love to ask Bush or Cheney or any other member of his administration or any of his supporters one simple question. Why did the administration press so hard for nearly a year to get UN Weapons Inspectors into Iraq only to ignore their findings? I think the truthful answer, which I would never get from any of the aforementioned groups is that they never thought Iraq would agree to let the inspectors back in and that alone would have been a sufficient justification for war. The administration bluffed and Iraq called them on it.
Much discussion has been made since the Obama administration took office regarding “truth commissions” that would investigate whether members of the former Bush administration committed crimes regarding torture of prisoners and other issues. My hope is that an investigation is also conducted into the process and decision-making involved in going to war in Iraq with an eye to whether US or International Law was broken. In my opinion, the answers to those questions are obvious. The UN Weapons Inspectors reports of March 7, 2003 should have stopped the Iraq war from happening. Hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed and trillions of dollars in wasted expenditures are the responsibility of those who made the decision to go to war despite those reports.
BlueCaliDem
(15,444 posts)I'm familiar with how the run-up to the Iraq war began, and I was enraged that Bush refused any evidence showing that Saddam was no imminent threat to the U.S. and that he had no WMD. What angers me about the Democrats was, they trusted this guy. This pResident who was crowned by his daddy's buddies in the SCOTUS was hell-bent on launching war. Which Republican president since Reagan, wasn't?
So what they did, in supposed good faith, was wrongheaded. This is the U.S. Congress. They're not naive. They know the history and they knew about Bush's penchant for dishonesty especially since Cheney was his veep. I knew, long before 9/11 that Bush was intent on launching war with Iraq. I learned this from Liberal blogs like Commoncause and other sources.
The Democrats should have just abstained from voting or voting NO. The Republicans didn't need the Democrats to vote for the IWR since they had a majority, so that was why I am still angry about their votes. They, as the more intellectual party, should have known what this high-school drop-out learned on her own from the Internet - that Bush just needed an excuse to go to war with Iraq. And they gave him one.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Kerry voted for the thing - which even he acknowledges was a mistake. It's great that he acknowledges the mistake - but that doesn't reverse it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)yourself claim is one of the more important issues of our time? Besides that mistake?
- OK, how about the mistake of not laying 100% of the blame at Bush and the administration's door rather than the Democrats who voted for a resolution that was violated? Lets lay it out logically if that is not immediately apparent
Person A votes to allow Person B to do something drastic if condition X is met.
Condition X is not met. Person B takes the drastic action anyway. You think we should blame person A for the action person B took.
That simply does not make sense. It doesnt matter that Kerry and various others regret their vote, the logic to blame them still does not make sense.
- How about the mistake you generally make of concentrating on blaming Democrats for things instead of blaming Republicans whose fault it really is and without whom few to none of these things in the economy, trade or foreign policy would happen?
BlueCaliDem
(15,444 posts)karynnj
(61,090 posts)Including in a Georgetown University speech in 2005, several Meet the presses, long enough ago that Russert was the host and in a Take Back America speech where he also called the war immoral.
So you can hear hhim with your own ears say the war AND his vote were wrong, here's a link:
11 minutes in - if you want to hear just that.
You also ignore Kerry/Feingold which was the bill that in various versions became the Democratic plan out.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)"Hillary Clinton Defends 2002 Iraq War Vote On Meet The Press"
"Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html
Sam
Renew Deal
(85,349 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, the logic would be seriously compromised in that case.
A vote for President (and even Senator), but no support for SOS?
Renew Deal
(85,349 posts)
MessiahRp
(5,405 posts)Almost all of the Top Democrats voted for the war and we know now that they were given faulty and sometimes outright phony intelligence in their briefings. The Bush Administration lied to them even worse than us.
Kerry is an honorable man and in 2004, he was shining the spotlight on the Administration having lied to them/us pretty hard ESPECIALLY in regards to Osama Bin Laden where he publicly called out the Administration STANDING DOWN at Tora Bora and the media ignored him.
He will be fantastic as SOS. Maybe the best qualified person in the United States for the position.
malaise
(297,900 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)because Rice wasn't selected?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251262472
How do you reconcile that with your attack on Kerry?
"How 'bout we give peace a chance?"
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Rice, herself, is certainly no bargain.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yeah, but she's a sweet deal when you find an anti-Obama angle to the situation, right?
If she's "no bargain," and based on the OP, shouldn't you be relieved?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...authorizing President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq:
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)
Obviously, quite a few Democrats were taken in by the Bush Administration's false claims about WMDs in Iraq. It was only discovered later that members of Congress were only given the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that made these false claims. The background data for the NIE was much less positive about the assertion of WMDs in Iraq and would have raised a lot of questions had the Members of Congress also been given that data and given the time to read it. The Bush Administration wanted that war in Iraq and they were willing to do and say anything to get a positive vote on the war resolution.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)UN Weapons inspectors went in and issued reports 13 days before we went to war that after 4 months of on site inspections, no WMD were found and they were getting adequate cooperation. Thus, the conditions for war that IWR specified were not met and it was violated. So again, how can people be blamed for voting for it?
See my #39 above for a more complete explanation!
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)The bottom line is foreign policy is set by the President...not the Secretary of State. If we "invade small countries", it won't be because John Kerry thinks so...
