John Kerry says he ‘opposed the president’s (George W. Bush) decision to go into Iraq’

[Stupefacto]

Fact-checking website Politifact.com rules that his statement is "mostly false."

Kerry said recently that he "opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq." In 2002, he voted to give the president the authority to attack, with a stern warning that Bush ought to exhaust diplomatic channels first. In 2003, as the president invaded, Kerry accused him of a "failure of diplomacy."

As a Democratic presidential primary unfolded in which the war was unpopular, Kerry kept up his criticism of Bush’s handling of the war. But he still said at a 2003 debate that he thought it was "the right decision" to disarm Hussein and that "when the president made that decision, I supported him." In 2004, he said he would vote to authorize force all over again.

It’s clear Kerry opposed the president’s handling of the war, and perhaps the president’s decision to "go into Iraq" militarily at the time he did. He suggested diplomatic opportunities were squandered. But he did vote to authorize force, and he said later he supported the president’s decision to disarm Hussein. It was a nuanced position — one too nuanced to be summarized accurately by a claim as blunt as having "opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq."

These are critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate Kerry’s claim Mostly False.

All emphasis is mine.

Let me kill one likely counterargument before it even shows up in the thread. Some will try to defend Kerry by pointing out that he warned Bush that he needed to find a diplomatic solution first. Well, why then did Kerry say in 2004 that he would have trusted Bush with authorization of force AGAIN, if he was so much against Bush's non-diplomatic solution? Why did he say in 2003 (after the war began) about Bush's decision, that "I supported him"?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/john-kerry/secretary-state-john-kerry-says-senator-he-opposed/

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Kerry also made the same claim about Chuck Hagel, who voted for invasion

along with all but 1 of his fellow Republicans. Kerry said Hagel opposed the very war Hagel voted to authorize.
These claims, self serving and simply not accurate, had no place in the discussion of Syria and these claims were among the several reasons Kerry still has my ire and will never again have my trust.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. It's gargle-wargle CYA by Kerry.

[ProSense]

3. Kerry did oppose the decision,

and Politifact doesn't know the truth went it sees it.

Politifact, R.I.P.

This is really awful. Politifact, which is supposed to police false claims in politics, has announced its Lie of the Year — and it’s a statement that happens to be true, the claim that Republicans have voted to end Medicare....to replace Medicare with a voucher system to buy private insurance — and not just that, a voucher system in which the value of the vouchers would systematically lag the cost of health care, so that there was no guarantee that seniors would even be able to afford private insurance.

The new scheme would still be called “Medicare”, but it would bear little resemblance to the current system, which guarantees essential care to all seniors.

How is this not an end to Medicare? And given all the actual, indisputable lies out there, how on earth could saying that it is be the “Lie of the year”?

The answer is, of course, obvious: the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other. So they’ve bent over backwards to appear “balanced” — and in the process made themselves useless and irrelevant.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/politifact-r-i-p/

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

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. There you go...

Injecting facts into a perfectly good outrage devoid of facts...

I remember about 10 years ago when DU was full of cheerleaders for Kerry. He was supported lock, stock, and barrel. It was general accepted that he opposed the Iraq war, even though he voted for the IWR before the lies were revealed.

[rug]

6. You have an elastic definition of fact.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Not so much...

Kerry opposed the Iraq War once the lies were exposed. Remember the lie machine? 24/7 repeating the same bullshit. It wasn't until those lies were exposed that Dems really started to oppose the war.

It is a FACT that Kerry was 100% supported on this site when he ran for POTUS in 2004. No one was heavily criticizing him for the IWR. Those that were criticizing where called out and the facts were presented. The fact is Kerry voted for the IWR. Then, after the facts came out (BEFORE we invaded Iraq), Kerry heavily condemned the proposed invasion.

There seems to be a selective memory amongst SOME DUers these days...

[roguevalley]

30. he was looking at the facts but voted anyway. anyone who allowed this atrocity

to happen is a dick to me. Kerry greased the skids with his vote. He's as guilty as anyone. Saying HELL NO would have taken more guts than he had. Even from the boonies of alaska with a modem and a computer, I called bullshit on the whole thing. Kerry has no excuse. He voted to make it happen.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

31. The facts came out AFTER...

There UN Inspectors hadn't even come back yet.

Yes, many people called bullshit without having the facts. Yes, they were right. But they didn't have the facts, and neither did Kerry. We had the bullshit machine that spewed lies 24/7. After the facts came out (WHICH WAS AFTER THE IWR), Kerry opposed his decision. Like I said, 10 years ago, Kerry was considered a liberal on this board. He was championed on this board. Now he's somehow evil incarnate... SMH.

[ProSense]

35. It's convenient to ignore that Bush lied in order to attack Kerry.

The fact that every Senator believed Bush's lie about WMD and supported one of the other resolutions doesn't matter.

Feingold on the Senate floor, September 26, 2002:

<...>

The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue. What is the mission? Is the mission on the table disarmament or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing the weapons of mass destruction sites as part of a military operation in Iraq ? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the United States intends to take to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not remain a problem in Iraq beyond the facile ``get rid of Saddam Hussein'' rallying cry?

Saddam Hussein is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history, and I have no problem agreeing that the United States should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be much better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the sole personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9412-2.pdf#page=1
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9413.pdf#page=1

Patrick Leahy:

<...>

But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.

In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.

We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. ^This...

Lefter Than You Are Underground has a memory problem...

[PowerToThePeople]

40. Why isn't Kerry center stage of a Bush prosecution process? n/t

[roguevalley]

49. no he isn't evil incarnate. how is it when someone questions a

person's actions they are a HATER? Kerry owns his vote. He had access to the people and the facts even those that were known then. It was CLEAR that there were problems with the facts then and how all of this was unfolding. A good man would have held his vote for something so OBVIOUSLY fucked up. He didn't. This is his burning tire. He owns it. But we don't have to agree. I can tell you that in the boonies of Alaska I could see BULLSHIT and he SITTING IN CONGRESS WITH ACCESS TO STUFF can lie and say he was fooled or he didn't do this or that. He did. That is the sad truth. Don't agree. We don't count if you noticed but I don't intend to join the revisionists who want to rewrite their actions. Kerry owns this vote and outcome.

[LuvNewcastle]

38. You knew it was bullshit, I knew it was bullshit, plenty of Americans

knew it was bullshit, but we're supposed to believe that U.S. Senators and Representatives were deceived by Bush and his advisers. I call bullshit on that, too.

[rug]

5. "The IWR was not a vote to attack Iraq"?

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution_4.htm

Read the text. If you click on the, er, link, you'll see the names of 21 Democratic senators who voted against this. Kerry's name is not among them.

[ProSense]

7. It wasn't a declaration of war,

and it damn sure wasn't authorization to launch an illegal invasion.

[rug]

8. It was a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The present Secretary of State voted for it.

[KG]

10. incredible, isn't it.

[rug]

13. Sadly, no.

[Aerows]

11. What do you call it if it isn't

"launching an invasion" or "war"? I think when you are bombing the shit out of a country and putting boots on the ground there ... that's pretty much called starting a war. And yes, Kerry voted for it.

[ProSense]

27. Well,

"What do you call it if it isn't "launching an invasion" or "war"?"

..."you call it" giving Bush the authority to decide, which was a mistake. Bush lied.

Like I said, it wasn't a declaration of war, and it damn sure wasn't authorization to launch an illegal invasion.

[Vanje]

29. Be careful, everyone. Watch your footing

It just got very very slippery in here.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. So, if Bush lied?

Why isn't he prosecuted?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

As I read it today, he had the authority to use force under a very strict set of circumstances and with very specific goals. Those circumstances and goals were not met. Why is he not in prison for breaking the law?

[former9thward]

57. The U.S. Congress has not formally declared war since 1942.

But we have been in plenty of wars since then. To say it is not a war is just doublespeak. The resolution was in fact a post WW II war declaration and everyone knew it.

[Aerows]

9. If an authorization to use military force

against another country, and put boots on the ground in that country isn't "war" or "launching an invasion", then what do YOU call it?

[KG]

12. revisionism?

[Aerows]

14. That's the ONLY thing I could call it

however I think even calling it that is charitable.

[Aerows]

16. Quick question

what does the W in the IWR stand for? Hint: It isn't "well-wishing" or "wonderful" or even "wishy washy"

[YvonneCa]

21. AUMF...

...Authorization for Use of Military Force is the actual title.

[rug]

23. No, that was for Afghanistan, passed September 14, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[The Straight Story]

17. I am trying to figure out how this is relevant to anything

No defender of Kerry (can't say I really like the guy, have respect for him and his office, just not a big fan) and I am wondering why his views 10 years ago have any relevance to any issues today.

If it is because he was not being totally truthful...well I can spend all day making ops about such politicians

Can certainly see someone authorizing the use of force should it be needed later, thus allowing a quicker response time should the need arise (so he is, if nothing else, of being naive about bush's true intent to wage a war over money/oil based on outright lies, which killed many of our troops and was a betrayal to our country and our armed forces).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. The relevance, as pointed out in the OP, is that

"Kerry said recently ..."

The issue is currently of importance to Kerry. That's why he was willing to lie about it.

[The Straight Story]

20. Ok...and that means what exactly?

What are we supposed to take away from the whole exchange?

Is it we are to imply he is for war with Syria (probably is IMHO)? That he personally views his actions as being different than his intentions at that time? That if he lied about that he is lying about other things (again, I would brand 99% of all politicians liars).

[kenny blankenship]

19. This is the danger of AUMF style resolutions as opposed to straight up War! declarations

The AUMF on Iraq was a blank check for war that pretended that it was not a blank check for war. It purported to set "tough" conditions on the use of force and prohibit it if those conditions weren't met by the Executive. The Executive never even bothered with fulfilling the theatrical requirements supposedly placed on it, but barged ahead into Iraq, knowing there would be no consequences. Such a resolution allows people like Kerry to say that they voted FOR something, and also AGAINST something in voting yes on the bill. They must admit they voted yes to the bill, but they say they were always against what it authorized. They can argue they were on either side later on, for or against, at different times, according to whichever seems more politically advantageous at the moment. That's what Kerry is doing. How can they do this? Because a bill like the AUMF pretends to be a neutral flowchart of decision making, a set of contingencies which trigger set consequences. He voted Yes but says he was against the war. That is a lie. It's a lie because everyone who isn't a fucking liar or in an institution for mental incompetents knew that there was no way the Executive branch would supply answers to those contingencies in any way but in manner that led to war. Kerry bid the Iraq war commence, adopting a craven and dishonest posture of saying "but only if thus and such are the case". It's no surprise he makes use of the duplicity built into the Iraq War AUMF because bills are crafted to allow crafty folks to lie out of both sides of their mouths like this. "I voted Yes, but I was against the main thing that the bill authorized!" Bullshit you were, John. Bullshit you are now.

A danger we face, now that straight up WARRRR!!!! has been rejected by Congress, is that the Administration and the leadership of both parties, unified in wanting war, will craft another such contingency laden war resolution, supposedly placing strong conditions on the authorization of force, but in practice letting 'er rip just like Congress did when Bush was President. The War Preznit will say he needs this pre-authorization to look credible in negotiations, and the Congress can escape the immediate hit they would have taken in public opinion for voting yes to straight up WAARRRR!!!! The consequences for voting Yes will be deferred. Responsibility can all be shunted onto UN weapons inspectors, or onto the President, who's not up for reelection anyway. It becomes much easier to vote to make war when it is worded as a contingency: if report comes back X, then we do Y. That way we weren't slavering for war, we were just blandly following a bureaucratic procedure (to join in the butchery.) And politicians can say in the future, like Kerry says of his shameful past, that they weren't voting for war. Oh no! They opposed the idea of war. They just voted Yes on a neutral resolution that said that military action might be taken when some conditions were met. It didn't say war would definitely be launched! It's not their fault of course, that the President didn't bother to fulfill his obligations, or if the UN inspectors couldn't satisfy the President... Except their names are still recorded in the Yea column on the bill that authorized the war.

[bvar22]

22. John Kerry wants to have it both ways.

Sorry, John.
Doesn't work that way.
Sad to see you ruin what once was a great PEACE legacy.

Everybody KNEW that an "Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq"
was an authorization to use Military Force in Iraq with YOUR name on it.

Thankfully, these Democrats weren't afraid to STAND against it:

[font size=3]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against an unnecessary WAR.

The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
(IWR)

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

Dude, you had your chance to STAND with these principled DEMOCRATS, and blew it.
When this vote came to Congress, you were either WITH them,
or AGAINST them, and YOU chose.
I cringed every time Bush-the-Lesser smirked into the cameras and said,
"The Democrats voted FOR IT too!!!"
It is too late to revise History now.


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their excuses.

[ProSense]

25. Senators Boxer and Durbin voted against the IWR, but voted for the Syria resolution:

Who voted for the Syria resolution?

By Ed O'Keefe

Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday to approve a resolution authorizing U.S. military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

<...>

Final tally: 10 to 7, with one senator voting present.

Who voted yes?: Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (by proxy — was absent due to the Jewish holiday), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Who voted no?: Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Who voted present?: Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/04/who-voted-for-the-syria-resolution/

Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662378

[Autumn]

26. We stand passively mute. Thank you Senator Byrd.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/18/usa.iraq

Yes John Kerry voted for it. Some of us remember.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

32. But Senator Byrd was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act...

You stand with a racist?

[Autumn]

37. If you chose to think I stand with a racist Senator Byrd, please do so.

I stand with and have tremendous admiration for the wise man he became.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. So a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act can change...

But a guy who voted for the IWR cannot?

[Autumn]

42. I don't believe Senator Byrd ever denied voting against the Civil Rights Act.

Did he?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. Kerry never denied voting for the IWR...

But he did say he OPPOSED the war. And if you look back to right after the UN inspectors said there were NO WoMDs, Kerry publicly denounced the war. Numerous times.

Robert Byrd was still dropping the word "nigger" in 2001.

[Autumn]

45. He voted for the IWR, Iraq War Resolution.

He did not oppose the president’s decision to go into Iraq with that vote. When he ran in 2004 he said he would vote to authorize force again. His words that he opposed the war with Iraq ring a little hollow. He voted for it, he supported it and said he would do it again.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

47. And Robert Byrd doesn't like black people...

I'll stand by Kerry. You can have your racist hero...

[Autumn]

48. Do as you will.

[Carolina]

28. Excellent rebuttal, bvar2

to the Problms on this board

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Those who voted No should be lauded. And special note that the single Republican who

voted against allowing Bush to invade Iraq was not Chuck Hagel, but Lincoln Chafee. Hagel voted Yes on the IWR, although Kerry says he also opposed the IWR.
I understand Sec Kerry's regret, but to dissemble about it while attempting to build trust is a smug bit of cynicism and contempt for the people.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. He may as well have said that he still can have erections....

Don't worry SOS... you still can be a man and admit you were wrong.

[snooper2]

33. Yo OP where you go?

Aren't you going to participate in your own thread?

[Stupefacto]

44. Sure! Factcheck.org says Kerry is revising history

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/

Make that two independent factcheckers.

[snooper2]

58. Congrats on 18 posts!

ping me when you get to 48

[treestar]

41. Why are you trying to trash the SOS at this point?

His positions can be reconciled. Or, he was not SOS before. These are different situations.

[Celefin]

51. A politician that takes on a new function is free to rewrite his voting history?

He was asked recently and he gave the least untruthful answer. This isn't about something long past, it's about a statement made recently that refers to something long past.

I don't see how becoming SOS plays into a statement on his voting history. Could you elaborate on that?
Also, how can his positions be realigned? Could you also elaborate on that? I really don't see it.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. It's worse, he was not asked, he offered up this misinformation in service to himself

and Hagel voluntarily, trying to explain to us why we should trust this urge to go to war again. He took time during crisis to spin his and Hagel's past fuck ups, because he's set on automatic in regard to self promotion.

[treestar]

56. Kerry obviously can do it

but for someone who doesn't want to listen to him and wants him to be in the wrong, on a Democratic site, I guess it's not going to get through.

This thread appears for the simple purpose of trashing Kerry after his success in getting chemical weapons out of Syria. It's a kin to the Obama thread. This worked out for them, but we have to make sure Democrats don't get any credit!

[L0oniX]

46. Hmmm ...where have I heard this kind of shit before ...Oh yeah ...I was for it before I was...

against it before I was for it because I was against it before I was against it before I was for it... blah blah blah

[cali]

50. Intellectually bankrupt. All he had to do was vote against as his betters did

[ProSense]

55. You mean

"Intellectually bankrupt. All he had to do was vote against as his betters did"

..."his betters" who also believed Bush's WMD lie?

Patrick Leahy:

<...>

But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.

In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.

We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war

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

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 and Leahy voted for it.

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

[LiberalAndProud]

52. If Kerry relies on his position on the Iraq war

to engender confidence in his position today, I have to respond with a vote of No Confidence. What Kerry demonstrated with his IWR vote was that the only time opposition might have mattered, he voted yes.

Does that call his foresight into question?
Yes. Yes it does.

I was on the ABB team. That doesn't absolve Kerry of responsibility for his AWR vote. That he relies on his past position to justify his current position only serves to call his current position into question.