Kerry COVERS UP Iraq War Falsifications

[Segami]

Communications director for the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini said today: “Last night, John Kerry told Chris Hayes on MSNBC that he and Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel ‘opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq...’ This is a total lie — and it covers up the fact that the administration is full of people, including Kerry and Hagel, who themselves falsely claimed Iraq had WMDs and backed the invasion of that country.

“In 2002, John Kerry voted for the Iraq war authorization, saying: ‘Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try? … According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons … Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.’

“When I questioned Kerry in 2011 about voting to authorize the Iraq war, he said: ‘I didn’t vote for the Iraq war. I voted to give the president authority that he misused and abused. And from the moment he used it, I opposed that.’ see video at 2:30

However, a look at the record shows that after the Iraq invasion, Kerry did the opposite, outflanking Bush’s war stance in 2003: ‘I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy.’” See CNN “Kerry stands by ‘yes’ vote on Iraq war.” “It’s no wonder we’re getting so much propaganda on Syria from this administration. While President Obama continues to try to score points for one speech he gave that was critical of the Iraq war before it started, making false statements about Iraqi WMDs seems to have been a prerequisite for being picked for a top post. During the buildup to the Iraq war Joseph Biden also voted for war stating: “[Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.” Susan Rice told NPR: “I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”


“Some supporters of bombing Syria voted against the Iraq authorization, but made similar false claims, like Nancy Pelosi: ‘Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.’ Of course individuals like John McCain continued making statements about Iraqi WMDs after the invasion: ‘I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.’ “Kerry also remarked last night that ‘we know full well how that evidence was used to persuade all of us that authority ought to be given’ is quite ironic, since we already know he has made false statements about Syria and WMDs — and it ignores that 23 senators voted against the Iraq war authorization. So, it’s easy for Jon Stewart to make fun of the Donald Rumsfeld et al ‘idiot parade‘ — but that just distracts from the real point: How the entire foreign policy hierarchy of both establishment parties is addicted to falsifying for war.”


STEPHEN ZUNES, zunes at usfca.edu

Professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, Zunes just wrote the piece “Eight Arguments Against Going to War With Syria.” He warned in “The Case Against Kerry,” when Kerry was nominated for Secretary of State: “In 2002, he voted against an unsuccessful resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq only if the United Nations Security Council permitted such force under the UN Charter and instead voted for an alternative Republican resolution, which authorized President Bush to invade that oil-rich country unilaterally in violation of the UN Charter. “The October 2002 war resolution backed by Kerry was not like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution regarding Vietnam, where there was no time for reflection and debate. Kerry had been briefed by the chief UN weapons inspector and by prominent scholars of the region, who informed him of the likely absence of any of the alleged ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion, but he voted to authorize the invasion anyway. It was not a ‘mistake’ or a momentary lapse of judgment. It demonstrated Kerry’s dismissive attitude toward fundamental principles of international law and international treaties that prohibit aggressive war.




cont'



http://www.accuracy.org/release/kerry-covers-up-iraq-war-falsifications/

[Segami]

1. "...Kerry stated at that time that he expected President Bush..

.... ‘to work with the United Nations Security Council and our allies … if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.’ He then promised that if President Bush failed to do so, ‘I will be the first to speak out.’

“However, Senator Kerry broke that promise. When President Bush abandoned his efforts to gain United Nations Security Council authorization for the war in late February 2003 and pressed forward with plans for the invasion without a credible international coalition, Kerry remained silent. Indeed, when President Bush actually launched the invasion soon afterwards, Senator Kerry praised him, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution declaring that the invasion was ‘lawful and fully authorized by the Congress’ and that he ‘commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President … in the conflict with Iraq.....’”

[karynnj]

64. He did not break that promise

He spoke out in January 2003 at Georgetown University - saying not to rush to war - to let the inspectors finish and to exhaust diplomacy. (Here is a DU link to the National Review article written basting Kerry as anti-war. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3358606&mesg_id=3358606

As to speaking out in February 2003, Kerry was in the hospital being treated for cancer. The Senate resolution was in support of the US troops and it got 99 votes - with only Zell Miller not voting! http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00061 The sponsor of the bill was Frist and he had 98 co-sponsors -

S.RES.95
Latest Title: A resolution commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Sponsor: Sen Frist, William H. [TN] (introduced 3/20/2003) Cosponsors (98)
Latest Major Action: 3/20/2003 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 99 - 0. Record Vote Number: 61.
COSPONSORS(98), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 3/20/2003
Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 3/20/2003
Sen Allen, George [VA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 3/20/2003
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] - 3/20/2003
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 3/20/2003
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 3/20/2003
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Breaux, John B. [LA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 3/20/2003
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [CO] - 3/20/2003
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 3/20/2003
Sen Chafee, Lincoln [RI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 3/20/2003
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN] - 3/20/2003
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 3/20/2003
Sen Conrad, Kent [ND] - 3/20/2003
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/20/2003
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 3/20/2003
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 3/20/2003
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 3/20/2003
Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] - 3/20/2003
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 3/20/2003
Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] - 3/20/2003
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 3/20/2003
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 3/20/2003
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 3/20/2003
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 3/20/2003
Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 3/20/2003
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Fitzgerald, Peter [IL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Graham, Bob [FL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 3/20/2003
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 3/20/2003
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 3/20/2003
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] - 3/20/2003
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 3/20/2003
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/20/2003
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 3/20/2003
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 3/20/2003
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 3/20/2003
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 3/20/2003
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 3/20/2003
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 3/20/2003
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 3/20/2003
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 3/20/2003
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 3/20/2003
Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 3/20/2003
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 3/20/2003
Sen Nickles, Don [OK] - 3/20/2003
Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] - 3/20/2003
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 3/20/2003
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 3/20/2003
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 3/20/2003
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] - 3/20/2003
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 3/20/2003
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 3/20/2003
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 3/20/2003
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 3/20/2003
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 3/20/2003
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 3/20/2003
Sen Talent, Jim [MO] - 3/20/2003
Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] - 3/20/2003
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - 3/20/2003
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 3/20/2003
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 3/20/2003


There are tons of things to dispute here - because this article maybe exceeds the level of cherry picking that Bush did in his intelligence estimate.

[hfojvt]

71. good job

lots of B.S. in that article, but many are still eager to slime a leading Democrat.

[cali]

2. Of course it's a lie. He's a fucking LIAR

[Segami]

3. When Kerry challenged Bush to answer four questions...

"My question to President Bush is: "Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

Yes Kerry, I agree with you.....we should "get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."...

[blm]

4. You're wrong. Kerry opposed the DECISION to go to war when weapon inspectors proved

that there were no WMDs to be found and use of military force was not needed. Just as he said he would in his floor speech.

He was the only Dem yes vote to do so.

Voting FOR the IWR knowing weapon inspectors would be reporting back their findings was not nearly as bad as supporting the DECISION to invade after weapon inspectors were reporting back that there were no WMDs, and no need for military action.

You can edit anyone down to make a point, but, that doesn't change the fact that he stood against the decision to invade.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. 23 Senators actually voted No on the invasion, Kerry voted Yes, Hagel voted Yes. Biden voted Yes.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

[blm]

12. And when inspectors proved WMDs were not there, Kerry stood with them and against

any decision to invade Iraq. Yes votes siding with inspectors' position and against any decision to invade would have had a greater impact if MORE Yes votes had joined Kerry at the time. They didn't.

Why do you have a problem with the TRUTH?

[Bjorn Against]

9. A Yes vote was support for the decision to go to war and no amount of spin can change that

He voted Yes to give Bush authorization to go to war with Iraq, there was no legally binding qualifier on his vote. He did not vote "Yes, But...", he voted "Yes" and it does not matter if he mentioned a "but" in a speech because the "but" was not legally binding, the yes however was legally binding and gave Bush everything he asked for from Kerry. Kerry is lying when he says he opposed the war on Iraq, voting "Yes" to authorize the war was supporting the war and there is no way to spin it otherwise.

[blm]

11. He voted Yes, and said at the time that should weapon inspectors not find what

the administration claimed, that he would stand against any decision to invade. He did exactly what he said he would do.

Had more Dem yes votes stood with weapon inspectors against the decision to invade, it could have had a broader impact, at least, to get media attention focused in favor of the weapon inspectors.

[Bjorn Against]

15. The yes vote was legally binding support for the war, the promise to stand against was mere rhetoric

Kerry gave Bush everything Bush asked of him with his yes vote, saying words to the public that did not sound 100% supportive does not change the fact that the vote in favor of the war was legally binding and his words that came later were mere words.

[OnyxCollie]

44. Like Obama and his signing statement on the NDAA.

Sure I signed it, but I (probably) won't use it.

Others could, however.

[roguevalley]

54. voting yes meant that his protests afterward would mean nothing.

what kind of boob votes for a war without all the facts? That is what he did. He voted to authorize war without all the facts. His comments afterwards were weasel words to save his career against his cowardly vote. Period.

[blm]

55. You vote to get inspectors in and see what they find.

Those comments were not made afterward as you wrongly claim - they were made before the vote and he maintained that stance throughout and followed through on his word. No other Dem yes vote objected to Bush's decision to invade after the inspectors' report, though they claimed to have voted yes to get inspectors in, too.

Your anger should be directed at the rEAL weasels, not the only yes vote to followthrough on his promise to object to any decision to invade that is not based on the discoveries of the weapon inspectors.

[roguevalley]

60. anyone who voted for this at any stage is a weasel. I live in the boonies of

alaska with a computer and a modem and knew that anything giving bush the slightest break was bs. Kerry was there. He had information. He voted for the process that led to war. He gets no break. No one who voted for any part of this process against Iraq gets a pass. The dead didn't. They don't either. IMO.

[blm]

61. They were informed it would include UN weapon inspection process.

So Kerry said his vote would be yes, and he'd base his support for any DECISION to use force on the discoveries made by the weapon inspectors.

People forget that Scott Ritter, who was always hollering, correctly as it turned out, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, also testified in senate some years earlier complaining that there WERE stockpiles of chemical weapons still there at the time the inspectors left. Nothing was as clear as it seems now.

[cali]

65. Baghdad Johnny voted to give bush a blank check and

as far as I can see he did it out of opportunism.

He's an embarrassment.

[hfojvt]

70. there was a time in late February

although that is when I drove to a protest of the impending invasion, when Bush sorta seemed brilliant. Where is seemed like all the preparations for war were really getting Saddam to cooperate with inspectors. Inspectors were allowed in, when previously they had not been. Inspectors were allowed to inspect Presidential palaces, when previously they had not been. Saddam destroyed some missiles when the inspectors demanded it.

I was ready to give Bush credit for a strategy that worked, even though I hated him for his tax cuts and his dishonesty.

Then he decided to invade anyway.

[malaise]

19. +1,000 n/t

[karynnj]

66. Thanks tio you, BLM - here is a link to David Frum in the National Review blasting Kerry for speakin

out against going to war. Apparently, the Republicans heard him - even is this man didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3358606&mesg_id=3358606

[div class = "excerpt"]
Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.
<snip>

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."



This was also done at a very tough time in Kerry's life. He had learned just before the holidays that he had cancer. He was getting tests and treatments in January and had surgery in February. Still, he - unlike every other Democrat who voted to give Bush authority - spoke out in this speech and a few others.

[ProSense]

5. Kerry did oppose the decision.

Kerry was not the President. He didn't support the war. Bush didn't just lie before the vote. He lied during and after the vote.

The IWR was not a vote to attack Iraq. There were no UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR, but they returned shortly after.

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. 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, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.

After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:

Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War - Monday 2/18 at 9 p.m. ET

By Will Femia

Last night Rachel pointed out that this year marks the tenth anniversary of President George W. Bush's State of the Union address containing the now infamous 16 words that turned out to be a very consequential lie:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

Included in a collection of web materials associated with Rachel's upcoming documentary "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War," is a longer cut of that 2003 State of the Union address. It's a powerful reminder of how thick the Bush administration laid it on to rally the nation to war in Iraq:

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/14/16966287-hubris-the-selling-of-the-iraq-war-monday-218-at-9-pm-et

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm

...and then in the bullshit letter and report he sent to Congress claiming a link to the 9/11 attacks.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769

Bush's signing statement spelled out his intent to ignore the conditional aspects of the IWR. He acknowledged that while Congress agreed that a threat existed, they didn't give him the full support to launch a war unconditionally.

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

<...>


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. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

Here is a Kerry op-ed before the vote:

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Published: September 06, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry, January 2003

<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

<...>

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[Bluenorthwest]

8. 23 Senators actually voted No on the invasion, Kerry voted Yes, Hagel voted Yes. Biden voted Yes.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

[ProSense]

14. I posted the other resolutions, and the quote doesn't contradict my point:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

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.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

[karynnj]

67. I notice that you don't include Hillary Clinton

who unlike Kerry did NOT speak out against going to war between October 2002 and March 2003 when the war started.

[Bjorn Against]

10. A Yes vote to authorize Bush to go to war is not opposing the war

I can't believe you can even try to make this argument, all the blue links in the world will not turn a lie into the truth.

[Aerows]

16. I guess she thinks it will

if you can't dazzle them with the truth, befuddle them with bullshit. And that is a fine pile of bullshit being peddled. What you DO matters a hell of a lot more than what you SAY and Kerry failed the DO part of what matters by voting "YES".

[blm]

22. He DID stand against the decision to invade after inspections.

What part of that is a lie? It's apparent that you don't want what actually was said and promised and acted on to be true.

[Aerows]

24. A Yes vote

is a yes vote. It isn't a no vote. It isn't "I voted yes, but my heart was saying no".

[OnyxCollie]

45. To use another example, the "near win" on the Amash amendment.

Is the NSA still spying on us? Yes.

[Aerows]

47. I'd be dizzy, but the bullshit smells

are keeping me awake.

[blm]

18. And he said if weapon inspector reports proved there were no WMDs he'd

object to the DECISION to use force.

He did. He publicly sided with the weapon inspectors and against any decision to go to war after the report by the weapon inspectors.

You refuse to see that basic truth.

[Bjorn Against]

25. Once again voting Yes is supporting the war even if he promised to oppose it later

If someone says they are going to vote for something but might oppose it after the vote that does not wipe away their "yes" vote, it only proves that they voted for something without considering the consequences of their vote. If he thought there was a chance he would oppose it later then he should have voted No.

[blm]

28. At the time weapon inspections were part of IWR...other Yes Dems said the same

but Kerry was the ONLY one to publicly stand with the weapon inspection report and against the decision to invade.

You may not LIKE that he did that, but, you can't continue to lie and say he didn't do it.

He did do it - and now you're being untruthful and claiming he didn't.

[Bjorn Against]

30. He supported the war before the report was released

He voted for the war, he may have had second thoughts after the weapon inspectors failed to find WMDs but those were second thoughts, his first thought was to vote Yes and there is no way to spin it otherwise.

[blm]

33. Nope - he promised IN THAT SAME SPEECH to stand against a decision

to invade if weapon inspectors proved it was not needed to disarm Iraq.

You can't change the facts and that he followed through exactly as he said he would.

Some of us can wrap our brains around what he did and why he did it and how he followed through with his opposition exactly as promised. Where were the other Yes senators who claimed their vote was for weapon inspections? Have you ever spent this much time lambasting them for really lying in their floor speeches and only paying lip service to weapon inspections as they, unlike Kerry, supported Bush's DECISION to invade?

[Bjorn Against]

35. He stood for the decision before he stood against it

Keep arguing this all you want, but you are probably looking pretty pathetic to most people. I have never even heard anyone try to argue that a Yes vote on the Iraq War Resolution was actually opposition to the decision to go to a war.

Kerry could have voted No but he did not, he voted Yes to the decision to go to war giving a non-binding qualifier does not change that. If he had opposed the decision to go to war he would have voted No. Period.

[blm]

41. The TRUTH matters. And it doesn't change. He did what he SAID he'd do

and your claim is that he did NOT do as he said and stand against the DECISION to invade, should weapon inspections prove force was not needed to disarm Iraq. Simple truth. You just don't care that it IS true.

You're the one who looks silly for claiming that Kerry wasn't against the DECISION To invade when he clearly was, and just as he promised he would when he voted Yes for IWR.

I am not trying to change his Yes vote, as you are claiming. Neither is Kerry. You need to be untruthful in your claim that he was not against the DECISION to invade, when he CLEARLY did publicly side with the inspectors over Bush and his decision to invade.

I have the truth on my side and truth doesn't change.

[Bjorn Against]

43. He voted for the DECISION to invade

You can make the DECISION to keep putting the words DECISION in ALL CAPS all you want, but that does not change the fact that the DECISION to vote Yes on the Iraq War Resolution was supportive of Bush's DECISION to go to war.

[blm]

56. Then why the UN resolution to put inspectors in?

You might not like that there was one person sticking to his word to to object based on the reports from weapon inspectors, but, you can't keep pretending it didn't happen.

Or, you can keep pretending, and I won't give a fig.

[ProSense]

52. These are some of the same people

who claim Dean was anti-war, but can't accept that Kerry spoke out and did not support the invasion.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[Aerows]

27. He voted yes

If his heart was telling him no, and the evidence told him no, he should have voted no. But that isn't what he did. He voted yes, and you aren't going to be able to manipulate that into a positive that he really said no, because his actions said yes (the vote). "I don't want to shoot you" while pulling the trigger pretty much says that you feel otherwise and after the fact trying to justify it doesn't change the fact that you shot someone, nor does it make the person that was shot feel any better.

And that's what war is. It costs lives, health and relationships. It's not some video game or some game to play in the boardroom in the race to see who generates the most shareholder profits or who generates the most votes. It's life and death for a whole lot of people.

[blm]

31. He did stand against the DECISION to invade, just as he promised when he

voted Yes to get the weapon inspectors back in.

You don't LIKE that he did what he promised if the weapon inspectors reported back that force was not needed to disarm Iraq and stood publicly against Bush's DECISION to invade, but, you should stop being untruthful about it.

[Aerows]

48. OMG

A vote of YES on the IWR is a vote of YES, let's invade Iraq with a military force. It didn't suddenly become a pacifist argument. It meant "Invade with force and bomb the shit out of the place" not "oh gee, some inspectors should back up those claims" and no matter how you slice it, that is how John Kerry ultimately voted because he voted for "bombing the shit out of the place".

If you vote to send flowers first, but then vote that bombing the shit out of a place is a good idea, I'm thinking the flowers you sent don't mean very damn much.

[Aerows]

13. He voted "Yes"

and no amount of prevaricating, attempts to rewrite history or outright telling a lie that he didn't support it when he voted YES changes that fact. That is a fact. Opinions are fine, but Facts - he voted yes - don't change.

You would be welcome to use this as supporting evidence if he voted No, but he voted yes, so none of this matters. What you DO matters a hell of a lot more than what you say.

[blm]

20. Still baloney - he was against the DECISION TO INVADE after the weapon inspectors

reported back. He clearly says he was against the decision to invade in the OP. He's not lying. He was publicly against the DECISION to invade after the report by weapon inspectors....just as he promised when he voted Yes. The Editor O'Keefe's are lying.

[Aerows]

21. He voted YES to invade Iraq

and trying to paint the past as what you want to revise it to be is the biggest hill of bullshit I've ever seen. Yes votes, mean "I agree". Not "I don't agree with doing this". They mean "Yes, I agree with this". If that isn't what his vote means, he needs to leave Capitol Hill forever because he doesn't know what a vote means. And frankly, neither does anyone else trying to change a "Yes" into a "I really meant a no".

[blm]

26. No one said he didn't vote Yes on IWR. And at the time IWR included weapon inspections

and Kerry clearly stated that he would not support a decision to invade should the weapon inspections prove force was not needed to disarm Iraq.

Those claiming that Kerry did not stand against the DECISION to invade after weapon inspections proved it unnecessary are LYING.

You can't change what was said and done throughout because you edited it all done to one moment.

Kerry acted with integrity - why don't you toss sh!t at the Yes voters who claimed it was for weapon inspections, and then still supported Bush's DECISION to invade? All the crap gets tossed at the one guy with the guts to let his vote and his principled stance against Bush's decision to invade play out publicly.

Get into the REAL arena if you think a man like Kerry should be easy fodder for you because you know how to edit.

[Aerows]

29. You were just arguing and so was ProSense

that some how his yes vote was more noble than a no vote, even though he voted YES. YES is not NO. NO would have been an action. All of the other prose is just talk when you choose YES instead of NO. You aren't stupid. You know this. And most other people aren't stupid either. They know "YES" means "I AGREE" and "NO" means "I DON'T AGREE".

Let's save the dumb arguments for the Republicans to have - there is no need to have them among Democrats that know better, follow politics and are chatting on a political board. We aren't cousin Mona in BFE that only watches Fox and hasn't cracked a history book in decades, nor are we uncle Frank that doesn't even know what his district is, much less who is the Representative for it, so stop playing like you can pretend that we are.

[ProSense]

34. I made no such silly assertion.

The IWR was not a declaration of war. None of the other amendments declared war.

Kerry did not agree with Bush's decision to go to invade Iraq.

[NuclearDem]

36. Since when did "use of military force" not mean war?

War is armed conflict between nations, done by the use of military force.

No, it wasn't an official declaration of war, but the War Powers Act has done away with any need for that.

[Aerows]

38. The attempts to spin

or really, to lie, here are outrageous. I wouldn't believe it of otherwise sensible people if I wasn't seeing it with my own eyes.

[ProSense]

50. "No, it wasn't an official declaration of war, but"

Since you agree with the point, why are you asking a silly question?

[Aerows]

37. Kerry didn't agree with Bush's decision to go to invade Iraq.

He just voted yes to do so.

You are beyond reason.

[karynnj]

68. The vote was in October 2002 - the inspectors came in AFTER that the decision to go to war was March

Kerry did speak out in January against rushing to war. Here is a link to a REPUBLICAN view of what he said in a January 23 speech.
[div class = "excerpt"] From Bush speechwriter writing in the National Review:

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.
<snip>

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3358606&mesg_id=3358606

[Bjorn Against]

39. Do you even believe the shit you are saying?

You seriously must not care about your credibility at all, It is widely accepted by pretty much everyone on all sides of the issue that the Iraq War Resolution was approval to invade Iraq. You look extremely pathetic trying to pretend otherwise.

[ProSense]

51. I know exactly what I'm saying, and really don't give a shit what you think. n/t

[Aerows]

73. Oh, it's obvious that you don't give a shit what anyone thinks

you just post endless PR for Obama and the WH administration because you don't care what anyone thinks AT ALL.

[blm]

57. No, I said clearly that his was a tough vote, but, he stuck to his word

to oppose the invasion if there were no WMDs found.

You can't stand the fact that he did oppose the decision to invade based on the reports from weapon inspectors, exactly as he said he would in that speech - the part you choose to ignore.

[NuclearDem]

17. The AUMF was an authorization to use military force against Iraq.

Kerry was in the Yes column.

These are facts.

If he opposed the use of military force against Iraq, he should have voted No. But he didn't.

[Aerows]

23. He voted yes

Period. That meant "Yes". It didn't mean "No". It didn't mean "I sort of mean no" or "I am saying yes but mean something different", it means "I vote YES".

[KG]

40. geez, he not only voted for it then, in 2004 he said he'd do it again.

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

wtf is wrong with some people here?

[NuclearDem]

42. He's a member of the administration now

And therefore, must be defended at all costs, even at the cost of severe motion sickness from the spin.

[Aerows]

46. It's like they expect to hold

people in Congress accountable for their votes, since that amounts to what passes and what doesn't. My goodness, we should feel stupid for thinking that a vote of "yes, I support that" actually signifies support!

I feel so dumb for thinking such a thing now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The politics of convenience. Dove when convenient. Hawk when convenient..or when the boss says so.

[mike_c]

32. those of us who were paying attention since 2002 are not fooled by Kerry's attempt...

...to re-write history.

[The Wizard]

49. The first person of note

to speak out against Bush was Howard Dean. Everyone else was still shaking in their boots about looking soft on Islam after 9-11. The media eviscerated Dean as they were/are controlled by the Bush cartel. This country owes Howard Dean a debt of gratitude.

[dixiegrrrrl]

58. Except now Dean supports attacking Syria.

Howard Dean appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday, suggesting that it’s best to trust President Obama on U.S. military action in Syria because he knows more about the crisis than most, Newsbusters.org first reported.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/howard-dean-we-should-trust-president-syria/

[blm]

59. Because Biden-Lugar would have prevented war in Iraq?

Because, just as Kerry preferred Biden-Lugar version of IWR, so did Dean who said in Oct2002, he would have voted yes for it. Dean was for Biden-Lugar version of IWR.

Perhaps it's simply that you don't remember what actually happened and exactly when they happened.


http://observer.com/2002/08/kerry-shows-courage-in-challenging-bush/

Plus:

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Interview_MeetThePress_July21_2002.htm

Dean on MTP in July 2002
Refusing to back up Kerry and Gore criticisms of Bush's military command:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[karynnj]

69. In fall of 2002, when the resolutions were voted on, Dean supported a resolution against Iraq

The resolution he is on record as being for was the SFRC Biden/Lugar - which Kerry and Hagel, on the SFRC also preferred. Bush would have used ANY resolution to go to war.

In addition, in the interviews that Dean did in 2002, he spoke of the type of resolution he would prefer if he were writing it. That resolution would have been used by Bush as well.

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 2004 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.

Both of them spoke out against the war. Dean gave a very strong speech at a DNC convention in February or March that Kerry did not speak at - not to avoid speaking on Iraq, but because he was recovering from cancer surgery.

[bowens43]

53. lying for the boss is his job. Kerry, like his boss, is a liar

[jsr]

62. Bunch of despicable liars

[karynnj]

72. If you are referring to the OP - I agree

To give an idea of how untrue this is - he speaks of a resolution that Kerry co-sponsored after the invasion. What he doesn't say is that 98 Senators co-sponsored Frist's resolution which was essentially in support of the troops. (Byrd is the only one not on it - but I would bet that might have been because he was not available to sign )

In addition Kerry did speak out against the war before it started and spent most of 2003 and 2004 speaking of Bush misleading us into war. Doesn't sound like supporting Bush at all. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3358606&mesg_id=3358606

It was fair of Dean to use Kerry's vote, he cast it. However for the first half of 2003, the two people the media called "anti-war" were Kerry and Dean - when both did things like calling for Rumsfeld tor resign over Abu Graib.

Another lie in here is that he says that JK would have voted for it even if there were no WMD because Saddam could build them - this in fact is Edwards position in 2003 - however the link is the Grand Canyon comment where Kerry gave his usual answer and the media claimed it was to Bush's rhetorical question - but the answer included allowing the inspectors to finish - here is the 2004 Daily Howler account of what really was a media smear - and beyond that it does not say what the op says it does. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/depts.washington.edu/sswweb/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x167621

Kerry has to live with that vote -- which he long ago said he regrets. What is despicable is that this op - written out of hate - distorts the record to a point where it is not recognizable to anyone who ever bothered to listen to Kerry.

[Little Star]

63. k&r