Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)39. Wait
"There were some Democrats who voted consistently against invading Iraq, they weren't fooled by Dubya"
...which ones?
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
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
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.
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
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 Iraqs unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission
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.
After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush's 16 words still hotly debated
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/20/sprj.irq.wmd.investigation/
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
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
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
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
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy [View all]
Excelsyor
Mar 2014
OP
And why I worked on Russ Feingold's campaign. He was the ONLY US Senator to vote "no".
Scuba
Mar 2014
#23
The press was notoriously wrong about Kerry's position. He voted for IWR and when weapon inspectors
blm
Mar 2014
#5
"It is no wonder that independent fact-checkers have rejected Kerry's revisionist attempt"
ProSense
Mar 2014
#8
Try believing the truth - not corpmedia revisionists protecting Bush WH in an election year.
blm
Mar 2014
#21
There were some Democrats who voted consistently against invading Iraq, they weren't fooled by Dubya
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#25
Wasn't a matter of being fooled - it was a matter of Bush not adhering to guidelines.
blm
Mar 2014
#33
By 2003 anyone who didn't know Dubya was going to do what he wanted to do was a fool
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#51
The vote was Oct2002 - Kerry sided with the inspectors and AGAINST invasion publicly.
blm
Mar 2014
#89
I have plenty of posts on DU critical of Der Chimpenfuhrer, Dim Son, C+ Augustus
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#70
I immediately discount anything someone with a Guy Fawkes avatar has to say
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#20
Yes. It's called, "Discounting opinions of people who identify with terrorists" fallacy.
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#31
It's the 'I don't like to hear facts about courageous Democrats who really did vote againt
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#38
Because I'd like the U.S. to lead diplomatic negotiations to get Russian soldiers the fuck out of
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#26
Thanks to his history Kerry simply isn't a credible intermediary in this matter
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#53
well, he is credible and will somehow trudge forward in his role despite your protests
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#54
Why, because he has effected this nation's history more positively than you or millions of others,
blm
Mar 2014
#90
but he should get credit for launching an entire political flip flop meme
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#15
So you side with RW narrative about that, quinnox? ALL votes are FOR a version of a bill you prefer
blm
Mar 2014
#37
It's about a quarter of the combined chambers, and more than enough to nix claims of
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#52
I never said universally duped. But 70 votes in favor of something is definitely stepping into...
phleshdef
Mar 2014
#73
The only people that were fooled into believing Iraq had WMD, was the RWing spin machine.
Rex
Mar 2014
#60
Horse shit. Something like 72% of the American public was behind it in the beginning.
phleshdef
Mar 2014
#71
Anyone who thought they could trust Bush with that kind of authority was not fit for public office,
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#69
Is he in NY, did he run for President? Not sure why you think that alters anything I said.
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#79
"Anyone who thought they could trust Bush with that kind of authority was not fit for public office"
ProSense
Mar 2014
#80
I know what he said, but you seem to want to ignore parts of his statement and
ProSense
Mar 2014
#85