Scott Ritter: Challenging Kerry on his Iraq vote

[Q]

Published on Thursday, August 5, 2004 by the Boston Globe

Challenging Kerry on His Iraq Vote

by Scott Ritter

WITH THE release last month of the report by the Senate Select Committee on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry was handed a gift that rarely occurs in a major political race: the chance to underscore a major failing on the part of an opponent. The committee found that there was no intelligence data to sustain President Bush's oft-cited reason for last year's invasion of Iraq -- the presence of WMDs and ongoing projects dedicated to their manufacture. Kerry said that the Bush administration had been "wrong, and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong."

But Kerry failed to address that he was also wrong and that it was his leadership in the Senate that enabled President Bush to oversee the most flagrant abrogation of congressional constitutional responsibilities in modern time, the October 2002 vote to give Bush power to wage war against Iraq without assuring that there was a clear and present threat to the United States. It is Kerry's yes vote that calls into question the character of the man who wants to replace Bush in the White House.

When asked if he would agree with other Democratic senators who said they would not have voted to give Bush war powers authority if they had known about the lack of intelligence on WMD, Kerry let his vice presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards, speak for him: "I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this." Kerry concurred with Edwards, adding, "The vote is not today, and that's it."

More than 900 American troops in Iraq are dead and more than 5,000 wounded as a result of that vote, numbers that are sure to go higher. Kerry cannot honestly say he was not aware of the paucity of verifiable intelligence concerning the existence of WMD in Iraq on the eve of war. I personally discussed this matter with Kerry in April 2000 and again with his senior staff in June 2002. I asked Kerry to allow me to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearing on Iraq in July-August 2002 but was denied. Kerry knew that there was a viable case to be made to debunk the president's statements regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD, but he chose not to act on it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-06.htm

[ulysses]

1. Ritter critical of Kerry?

Don't tell Will...

[Q]

4. Voting for Kerry doesn't mean we have to agree with him on the issues...

...or fall in lockstep about Iraq.

- Ritter is right when he says that Kerry missed a great opportunity to challenge Bush* from the very beginning...when it was obvious to so many that his admin. was pushing this nation into an unjust and unnecessary war.

- Most of us will vote for Kerry no matter what...but we can't forget about the VOTE that took this nation to a war that didn't need to happen.

[ulysses]

7. I agree with you, Q.

:) I remember a time when that would have been an odd thing for me to say.

[Pastiche423]

9. He may have missed an oppportunity to challenge up to now

But it is not too late.

Will he challenge whistle ass between now and November? More importantly, does he believe it is the right thing to do?

From what I have heard and read, the answer to both, is a disappointing.......... no.

[Selwynn]

21. I agree with you man. Seem to be doing that alot lately.

[stevedeshazer]

24. I won't forget

I'll vote for him, and gladly. The stakes are too high. But this vote by Kerry still really pisses me off.

It reminds me of my disenchantment with Clinton over NAFTA and GATT.

When Kerry wins, the gloves are off. I think a lot of people are giving Kerry a pass on this...for now. I'm one.

[leesa]

26. Exactly. I will vote for him because BushCo is worse.

Kerry's gotta lot of explaining to do.

[Curious Dave]

2. I can swallow

about 10% of this bullshit, but I'm guessing it will take at least 7 or 8 of us to swallow all of it.

[Q]

5. Please point out the 'bullshit' for us...

...could you be more specific?

[Curious Dave]

8. It seems to me that

Kerry was asked a very leading question that didn't deserve a straight answer. Furthermore, ritter was implying that Kerry attempted to dodge this question by passing it on to Edwards. Its all very nuanced and dances around larger truths and questions. ritter's little piece manages to lack substance and be pejorative at the same time, sort like rush limpballs...

[F.Gordon]

16. Specifics?

Ritter should change his name to bullshit.

Ritter was, and may still be, as much of PNAC as all the rest. He was their fucking poster child back in 1998. Where do you want to start? The VX hoax. His congressional testimony that derailed the UN vote on Iraq. Every fucking Right Wing talking point on Iraq used then and used today came directly from Mr. Bullshit himself.

Oh, and fuck you Scott Ritter

Did I mention that I don't care much for Mr. Ritter?
:evilgrin:

[JanMichael]

3. Oh no! Is he a comrade of Palast now?! Wait, all is OK!

We'll have a couple of dedicated DU'ers defend to the last poster awake the fact that Kerry's vote WAS NOT A VOTE FOR WAR! His vote was just and good, as are all of his actions:-)

[TeacherCreature]

33. why comment on what DUers will do, rather than the article?

You seem to be smart enough to have an opinion, but instead you are attacking DUers for how you think they will react. You could very well be right, but what is the point?
You kind of tact is all too often the tactic of the third party/supported Nader in 2000 crowd. You try and vilify anyone who doesn't see things your way, even before they have posted. I know both sides do it, but again, what is the point?

[JanMichael]

71. For one I was right, as usual;-)

BTW I didn't vote, support, or like Nader in 2000 or now. I voted Clinton 1992 & 1996; Gore 2000; and intend on voting for Kerry 2004.

My "tact" is simple, I don't dig the alomost mechanical responses from the sycophantic Kerrybots who can't seem to accept that their new found god has made some egregious mistakes along with damned near the entire Democratic Party leadership in regard to the Iraq issue.


Thanks for playing.

[jpgray]

6. This is the same as Ritter's previous article

And I predict the arguments on both sides will be the same as in the previous thread. One side will say 'I told you Kerry is an evil warmongering PNAC stooge' and the other will say 'No, this further proves that Kerry has done nothing wrong ever involving Iraq.'

Those who take either side are both just looking for an argument, since what each side argues makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Have fun with your flame war. May the gray areas where the truth no doubt lies remain forever ignored.

:hi:

[F.Gordon]

10. Fuck you Scott Ritter

Which is it you miserable fuck? Did Kerry dis you, or did the Committee itself dis you?

If I had been Kerry I would have told you to go fuck yourself back in 2002.

You did more to get us into the Iraq War than Kerry. When you apologize for your PNAC actions back in 1998 I might forgive you. But until then....fuck you Scott Ritter

[madfloridian]

11. Ritter has always made it clear he is a Republican.

Many people differ with Kerry on this, but we are still voting for him.

[Minstrel Boy]

27. Ritter: "Bush as Hitler? You're damn right."

He may be a Republican, but he's certainly not in Bush's corner.

From his book Frontier Justice:


"It is our responsibility as citizens to be ever vigilant in defense of our society. This means we should be honest in our evaluation of what is transpiring around us in the name of government. Bush as Hitler? You're damn right. For Americans, Bush is worse than Hitler. Hitler never came close to destroying the American way of life; Bush is accomplishing that objective in spades. Hitler dreamed of global conquest; Bush is doing his utmost to achieve it. The PNAC posse speaks of the dangers of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and other "rogue states," but the sad truth is that Sheriff Bush and his PNAC posse pose the greatest threat to the security of the United States, and international peace and security for that matter, than the world has known for sometime. In typical Orwellian doublespeak, Bush and his posse posture in defense against tyranny, while perpetrating tyranny themselves. They are masters of the Big Lie: America is threatened, but the danger comes from within, from the very ranks of those whom we elected to protect us.

...

Bush as Hitler? Maybe not in terms of a point-by-point comparison (we have yet to kill six million Jews, but we are racking up an impressive number of Muslims, including the one and a half million that have died of starvation and disease during the decade of US-led sanctions in Iraq), but the PNAC posse comes dangerously close - too close - to mirroring the fascist model of global domination that Americans and the rest of the world rejected when defeating the Nazi Germany led by Adolf Hitler."

[JerseygirlCT]

55. I went to school with Scott

And while his bearing would certainly have seemed to indicate someone pretty conservative, I don't think he's really that easy to tag.

Can't say I knew him well at all -- I think I was a couple of classes ahead of him. But I suspect he's a bit of a maverick all around.

I also suspect he doesn't mind the attention one bit -- but that's just a guess.

[no name no slogan]

70. He endorsed Kucinich in the primaries

so I'm not sure what kind of Republican he's supposed to be.

The Kucinich-Endorsing kind? :shrug:

[BeFree]

12. Well, had Kerry listened to Ritter

He'd be about ten points down in the polls....

The big picture... for the thousandth time: Kerry's vote took from Karl Rove's hand the biggest campaign fireball Rove could have thrown. Look at how Kerry's vote against the $87B has been used against him.

Otherwise, Ritter is correct.

Kerry on.

[glitch]

14. Kerry On! I like it. nt

[F.Gordon]

17. Kerry did listen to Ritter.....back in 1998

He was actually quite supportive of Ritter back then. But that's the problem. Kerry made the mistake of buying into the bullshit Ritter was feeding him back then.

Oh, and fuck you Scott Ritter

[Q]

18. Why are you so angry at Ritter?

- Most everything he has said has turned out to be true. He was joined by millions around the world and many Democrats...all who questioned why Bush* was so intent on rushing into Iraq.

- I'm simply appalled that the Dem leadership now seem to be demanding that we fall in line about Iraq or shut the hell up. Well, screw that shit. Bush* lied this nation into war and now the Democrats are silent about it so they won't look 'unpatriotic'. But what's more unpatriotic than sending American soldiers into harm's way and killing tens of thousands of innocent people for a lie?

- Kerry MUST admit that his vote and the Iraq 'war' is a mistake and has NOTHING to do with the greater cause of fighting the 'war on terror'.

[F.Gordon]

20. "Most everything he has said has turned out to be true"

Is ALL this true?

"unequivocally, Iraq has stored, developed, and hidden weapons capabilities in foreign countries." He declined to name them but said that by March 1998 UNSCOM had "positively identified key elements of the concealment mechanism -- who they were, where they were, how they worked."

Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment.

Inspections do work - too well, in fact, prompting Iraq to shut them down all together.

The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all. What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the Special Commission is such an illusion

PNAC member defends Ritter....

Wolfowitz also took on the administration for its attempts to smear and discredit Ritter, before turning to the issue of US policy on Iraq. Wolfowitz explained, "The administration is engaged in a game of pretending that everything is fine, that Saddam Hussein remains within a 'strategic box' and if he tries to break out 'our response will be swift and strong.' The fact is that it has now been 42 days since there have been any weapons inspections in Iraq and the swift and strong response that the Administration threatened at the time of the Kofi Annan agreement earlier this year is nowhere to be seen."

more (there's lots more but I don't want to bore you..)

We had some very specific information, which led us to believe we could go to locations where we would find aspects of this hidden weaponry, of these hidden components, and also uncover how Iraq actually went about hiding these weapons from the commission. We had very specific information, and we believe that if we'd been allowed to accomplish this inspection, we could have achieved meaningful disarmament results.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

This is my fave. Ritter claims in 2002 that he was never beating the drums for war. Never advocated military action in Iraq, but...

The world should demand a robust inspection regime and total Iraqi compliance. If Iraq refuses to allow this, or if it is unduly obstructive, then the United States and the Security Council should seek to compel Iraq, through military force if necessary. Military strikes carried out for the purpose of enabling a vigorous UNSCOM to carry out it mandate are wholly justifiable. And one thing is certain: Without an UNSCOM carrying out the full range of its disarmament and monitoring activities unfettered by Iraqi obstruction, the only winner to emerge from this situation will be Saddam Hussein.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/981221-scott.htm

==================================================================

If you want to attack Kerry and the dems on Iraq find a better source than Scott Ritter to do it for you. This guy is looney tunes. He claims to have done spy work for several countries. He accused Richard Butler of being a spy. This guy has.....issues...

Oh, and ask Ritter which dem stood up for him back in 1998?

Oh, and fuck Scott Ritter

[Minstrel Boy]

25. You should read Ritter's book Frontier Justice.

But I'm pretty sure you won't. Though maybe someone else reading this will.

Ritter zeros in on PNAC for having manipulated the US into a criminal war of conquest founded on lies, and accuses the Bush administration of having "had all the information necessary before 9/11 to know such an attack was imminent, and did nothing to stop it."

[F.Gordon]

28. Ritter zeros in on PNAC?

Well, who would know PNAC better than Ritter? You're right, I won't read his book.

Too funny. Now Ritter is a LIHOPer?

accuses the Bush administration of having "had all the information necessary before 9/11 to know such an attack was imminent, and did nothing to stop it."

[TeacherCreature]

34. sometimes people learn they were wrong and they change their opinion

It seems to me that Ritter is one of these people. I too think Kerry's vote on Iraq was not only wrong but politically motivated.
I am voting for Kerry this year, but as soon as he takes office I plan to say exactly what I think about his turn to the right. I plan to attend anti war rallies, right letters, and generally work to get rid of him in 2008 and replaced by another democrat who is NOT the conservative smary senator from NC.

[F.Gordon]

50. Has Ritter ever said ONCE that he was wrong?

If he has, I haven't found anything backing up your claim. In everything I've read he stands by what he said back in 1998. Ritter just changes the story from time to time to explain why he did what he did back then.

Now, apparently, he quit because Clinton was pushing for "war". The fact that Clinton was pushing for a review of UN sanctions on Iraq up until the bitter end was just a smokescreen to cover up his "real intentions".
:crazy:

So, you're voting for Kerry this year. But you're going to work to get him out in 2008? You and Ritter....birds of a feather.. I see why you defend him.....

[F.Gordon]

29. You should be attacking Ritter. Not Kerry.

I'll give you a little DU class assignment. First; find out why Saddam kicked out the inspectors back in 1998. After you find out why Saddam did this, look into who gave Saddam the information he needed to make this decision.

Sorry, but when the two words: Scott and Ritter appear in a thread the hairs on the back of my neck stand up....blood pressure goes up....I become something other than the usual mild mannered DUer I normally am.
:evilgrin:

[HFishbine]

38. "Saddam kicked out the inspectors back in 1998."

Got a source for that?

[F.Gordon]

45. Of course not. I just make shit up.

Got a source for that?

I guess the fact that Iraq suspended cooperation with the UN inspection teams in late October could be perceived as something other than kicking the inspectors out. Maybe I'm reading too much into that.

[WilliamPitt]

49. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE INSPECTORS

according to Ritter:

PITT: Why were the UNSCOM inspectors pulled out in 1998?

RITTER: In August of that year, Richard Butler took a delegation to Baghdad for discussions. The Iraqis were fed up with what they felt to be foot-dragging and deliberately provocations. They felt the inspectors were probing inappropriately into areas that dealt with the sovereignty and dignity of Iraq, and its national security. They wanted to clarify these issues. Richard Butler came in with a very aggressive program, and the Iraqis announced they weren't going to deal with him anymore. They felt he was no longer a fair and objective implementer of Security Council policy, that he was little more than a stooge for the U.S. Butler withdrew, and the Iraqis said they weren't going to deal with UNSCOM. This led to Richard Butler ordering the inspectors out in October.

Actually, the Iraqis had said from the beginning they weren't going to deal with American inspectors. Then they relented, but said they wouldn't let Americans do anything other than ongoing monitoring. At that point, Richard Butler pulled out all of the inspectors.

The US prepared to bomb Iraq. The bombers were in the air. Then the Secretary General's office was able to get the Iraqis to agree to have the inspectors return without precondition, and the bombers were called back. But the Pentagon and White House felt they were being jerked around by the UN, so a decision was made to bomb anyway.

On November 30th of 1998, Richard Butler met with Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor, at the U.S. mission to the United Nations in what they call 'The Bubble,' the secret room where you can have protected conversations. Berger told Butler the US was going to bomb, and laid out the timeline. The bombing campaign had to coincide with inspection: the inspections were to be used as the trigger. So Richard Butler was encouraged to develop an inspection plan of action that met U.S. strike timelines.

Based on these conversations, Richard Butler decided to send in inspectors to carry out very sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis.

Now, Iraq had already come up with a protocol for conducting what are called "sensitive site inspections," after several inspection teams I was involved in tried to get into special Republican Guard and other sensitive facilities around Baghdad. The Iraqis had said, reasonably enough, that they didn't want forty intelligence officers running around these sites. Rolf Ekeus flew to Iraq in June of 1996 and worked out an agreement called the 'Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspections.' When inspectors came to a site that the Iraqis declared to be sensitive, the Iraqis had to facilitate the immediate entry of a four-man inspection element that would ascertain whether this site had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, or whether it was indeed sensitive. If it was sensitive, the inspection was over.

These 'Sensitive Site Modalities' were accepted by the Security Council, and became part and parcel of the framework of the operating instructions. And they worked, not perfectly, but well enough to enable us to do our jobs from 1996 to 1998.

After talking with Sandy Berger, Richard Butler, working in close coordination with the United States, said that when the inspectors went in to Iraq that December, they were to make null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities. He did this without coordinating with the Security Council. The only nation he coordinated with was the United States.

The inspectors went in to Iraq, and to a Ba'ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad. The Iraqis said it was a sensitive site but the four-person team was welcome to come in. The inspectors unilaterally made null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities, and said the entire inspection team was going to come in. The Iraqis compromised by allowing a six-man element to inspect. The element found nothing. Still the chief inspector, under orders from Richard Butler, demanded a much larger team be given access. The Iraqis responded that only under the Sensitive Site Modalities would they allow a team back in. The inspectors withdrew and reported to Richard Butler. Butler cited this as an egregious violation of the Security Council mandate.

Under orders from the United States, he withdrew the inspections teams. He did this in direct violation of a promise he had given to the other members of the Security Council: that he would never again withdraw inspectors unilaterally, that if they were to be withdrawn, he would go through the Security Council, inform them, and get their permission. The inspectors work for the Council. But Richard Butler took a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, deputy U.S. ambassador, executed his marching orders, withdrew the inspectors, and two days later the bombing campaign started, using Richard Butler's report to the Security Council as justification – his report saying, of course, that the inspectors weren't being allowed to do their jobs by the Iraqis.

[F.Gordon]

53. Uh oh. Now I've gone and pissed off Will

The US prepared to bomb Iraq. The bombers were in the air. Then the Secretary General's office was able to get the Iraqis to agree to have the inspectors return without precondition, and the bombers were called back. But the Pentagon and White House felt they were being jerked around by the UN, so a decision was made to bomb anyway.

Ummm..which squadron was this? Where did they launch from? Who gave this order? Did Ritter get this information from his DoD contact? The same DoD contact that helped push the VX hoax?

On November 30th of 1998, Richard Butler met with Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor, at the U.S. mission to the United Nations in what they call 'The Bubble,' the secret room where you can have protected conversations. Berger told Butler the US was going to bomb, and laid out the timeline. The bombing campaign had to coincide with inspection: the inspections were to be used as the trigger. So Richard Butler was encouraged to develop an inspection plan of action that met U.S. strike timelines.

Now Ritter is Maxwell Smart? Secret meetings in "The Bubble". Let's see, Ritter quit when? And he has first hand knowledge of some secret meeting with Berger and Butler on November 30, 1998? How many inspections were conducted in November of 1998? Iraq had already said fuck off the month before.

Ritter had already pissed off Butler and Berger...making all kinds of wild accusations back then, but he is "in the know" with them regarding some "secret" meeting on November 30th? Sure. Whatever. Or, maybe Ritter really was a "company" man with a few PNAC contacts. Or, maybe Ritter is just plain looney tunes.

'Sensitive Site Modalities' ????

Wow! This is heavy stuff. Did they have a secret hand shake and everything? But I'm confused....I aint so smart. You're saying that the UN had one plan, the Clinton administration had another, and they never communicated with each other? This would make one hell of a movie.

Will, I have 100% respect for you. But, do yourself a favor and don't try to do any kind of sell job on me with Scott Ritter. I aint buying it. He was nothing but a PNAC whore, IMHO.

Doesn't it seem just a tad bit odd that Ritter comes up with these wild - very detailed stories? Do you ever question his information, or do you just take every wild story of his as being the truth?

Edit? Only one cup of coffee...can't....think...clearly (typo)

[WilliamPitt]

54. Ritter was the subject of the thread

I'm just reporting his words. You saw the "according to Ritter" bit at the top, yes?

[F.Gordon]

56. Yes, I saw it.

And I'm asking you questions that only Ritter can answer, which really isn't fair to you....but I have to go with what I'm given...

[HFishbine]

58. Making shit up?

Well, that would explain it.

Clinton asked the UN to withdraw inspectors from Iraq in 1998 for the commencement of Desert Fox.

[F.Gordon]

61. I'm sorry

I didn't realize that you were actually part of the Clinton National Security team. I'm honored that a former member of the Clinton administration would take the time to respond to me. I hope you'll forgive me?

[HFishbine]

62. No

I just have a memory and know how to use Google to confirm.

[F.Gordon]

66. Master. Of. The. Obvious.

I guess if I were President and was planning on bombing a country I'd probably remove the people I did not want in harms way.

The events of 1998 are just a tad bit more complicated than you'd like to make them, and the question I initially asked was when did Saddam shut down, kick out, whatever....the inspectors? And why?

Could it be that Scott Ritter was out on the media curcuit telling everyone that he was a spy? Could it be that Scott Ritter was out saying how the Clinton administration was using the inspections as a scam to spy on Iraq and identify military targets? Could it be that Saddam heard this and said "fuck you" to the inspectors? No. Probably not. Like I said. I just make shit up.

We could go back and forth on this, and we'll never get anywhere....but, I'll leave you with one final question. If you were PNAC and needed Saddam to dis the inspectors, how would you go about that? I don't expect a reply.....just your consideration of the question.

Peace.

[HFishbine]

67. Um, er

I'll avoid answering your speculations and instead comment one more time on what started our discussion. You made the claim, quite clearly, that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That's an historical inaccuracy. That was my only point. Clinton had Butler withdraw them. Saddam did not kick them out any more than he did on the eve of Bush's war.

Peace to you too.

[F.Gordon]

74. You'd make a good attorney

And, I have no idea why the heck I'm keeping this "discussion" alive. Maybe I'm fostering some need inspired by some horrible mentally blocked experience from my childhood. Maybe I should seek therapy.

You latch onto one statement, like an attorney, and won't let it go. You did read my post #45 no? I did clarify the comment there, but like an attorney.....

Anyhoo, since my personal site; www.shitmotivatedmakesup.com is currently down I hope you'll accept a link from the United Nations?

As reflected in the letter submitted to the Council on 31 October (S/1998/1023) by the Deputy Executive Chairman, Mr. Charles Duelfer, Iraq's decision to put a stop to all inspection activities by the Commission.

Iraq's decision, when combined with the decision it took on 5 August (see S/1998/718), brings to a complete halt all inspection activities of the Commission, either for disarmament or monitoring purposes. Several visiting inspection teams scheduled for the coming weeks in support of monitoring activities have been cancelled.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98-1032.htm

"Kicked Out" is apparently subjective. To me it means that Saddam would not allow the inspectors to enter the places where they, like inspect stuff. Do the things that inspectors do. In those places that inspectors....inspect.

If the objective of our "discussion" is historical accuracy then I think all historical events need to be examined.

And I'll save you the effort of a reply....."but, but....you clearly said Saddam kicked out the inspectors."

[Malva Zebrina]

57. I am inclined to think that the motivation was more than not wanting

to look unpatriotic

I think that many of the big players--Kerry, Edwards, Hillary for example, who may have their eyes on the presidency, did it because they actually wanted to invade, occupy Iraq, get rid of the dictator, take over the oil fieldsa nd provide American corporations with lucrative new contracts, especially the huge military industial complex.

I have come to believe that, for nothing else makes sense--together they could have all fought the "unpatriotic" smear.
They chose to take Iraqa and they chose to let Bush do the deed, disregarding the immorality of their vote.

No doubt, there is no other vote but a vote for Kerry in order to defeat Bush.

But is is shameful for this country that we are forced to vote for someone that allowed Bush to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians and almost one thousand soldiers on lies.

It is shameful

[no name no slogan]

69. 10 pts down.....or 5 points up?

85% of Democrats think we need to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Support for continuing the war is currently under 50%, and bound to get worse given the fighting that's been going on over the last couple of days.

The problem with Kerry is not his votes, necessarily. It's his lack of consistency ON those votes. First, he favored the war. Now, he says he would have opposed it if he had access to "proper intelligence". But even though he thinks the war is wrong now, he STILL thinks we need to remain in Iraq until it "stabilizes", whether it takes another four years, four months, or four decades-- he has yet to set an end date for the occupation-- even though continued American presence in Iraq is the cause of the instability.

However, I still support Kerry over Bush any day. At least Kerry is entertaining the notion of ending the American occupation "some day", which is a hell of a lot better than Bush and his NeoCon buddies' "war without end".

[Cocoa]

13. I agree with Ritter

except I disagree when he says that vote caused the war. It didn't, Bush caused the war and he would have gone to war without the vote.

And I agree with Dennis Kucinich that Kerry must win the election.

[Q]

15. Of course Kerry must win the election...

...but it's doubtful if Bush* would have 'gone to war' if the Democrats had voted against the resolution as worded. I imagine most Democrats knew there was no RUSH to attack Iraq...putting them in a position to demand a resolution that wasn't so vague and circumvented the UN, inspections and international support.

- It's a dishonest argument to say that Bush* is the only one to blame for the aggressive war on Iraq. While it's true that he was the one doing the pushing...it seems that Democrats were easily 'shoved' into war on a wave of false patriotism and political opportunism.

[paulk]

22. ...but it's doubtful if Bush* would have 'gone to war'

if the Democrats had voted against the resolution as worded."

????

This is pure conjecture on your part. Is this based on anything other than your fanatical desire to blame this war on the Democratic Party?

Bush is the CIC. He ordered the invasion. What is your motive in constantly trying to pin this on the Democrats?

[Q]

31. Nonsense. It's not 'conjecture' that the Constitution...

...gives ONLY congress the right to declare war. Republicans and Democrats alike abdicated their duty and responsibility to the Constitution and people by 'leaving it up to Bush*' whether to attack.

- No matter what the pundits and propagandists may tell you...Bush* couldn't have 'ordered' the invasion without the direct or indirect help of congress.

- Take a look at the 'antiquated' Constitution. A president doesn't have the authority to 'order' an invasion. He can do so ONLY if he has a rubber stamp congress or enough senators willing to look the other way as the executive branch breaks national and international law. And that's just what you have in this case.

- It's disgusting to see Democrats NOW pretending to have been duped by a 'president' that already had a history of secrecy and lying. Both sides knew what was going on...and they voted for it anyway. And now thousands of human beings are being killed because of Bush's* insanity and Democratic complicity.

[paulk]

43. The last time the US declared war was 1941

Despite what the Constitution says, US Presidents going to war without a declaration is a reality. Bush had already said that he had the legal authority to invade Iraq under previous UN and Congressional resolutions.

And how exactly could the Democrats have even gotten a "no" vote on the IWR with a Congressional minority?

Why do you need to pin complicity on the Democrats for the Iraq invasion? What are your motives? This is not a call for a "loyalty oath" - it's an honest question. What purpose does it serve to hammer on this month after month after month? It's all I ever see from you on this board. And it's always the same argument - it never changes.

Democrats are not shining heroes - they're politicians. They played the hand they were dealt, in a game that was rigged from the start.

Move on.

[TeacherCreature]

36. I have no desire to blame the democratic party for anything, however

Q is correct.
I am no Nader/third party/democrats suck message board persona. I am a very loyal democrat. Q is right.

[Q]

40. Isn't it strange that one has to take a loyality oath around here...

...before they dare criticize the Dem party? All of us have done it...if for no other reason than to fend off the accusations of being 'for Nader' or a FReeper. We're becoming like the opposition when we accuse others of being 'disloyal' or worse simply for speaking their minds.

- If Democrats would have voted TOGETHER against the resolution...there is no friggin way that Bush* could have attacked Iraq. At the very least they could have put Bush* in a position of having to negotiate or compromise on a less vague resolution.

- The fact remains: the Dems and GOPers who voted for the resolution WANTED to go to war with Iraq...and damn the consequences. They didn't care about the evidence.

[TeacherCreature]

64. Yes it is ridiculous that we must plead loyalty

to be allowed to have an opinion about what the party we are about to vote for is doing.
That vote is done with now and we can't change it. The revisionist history around here does get sickening though. I remember when most people here were angry about the IWR. Now we are all supposed to become stepford Democrats and pretend it was no big deal.

[no name no slogan]

72. Here, here.

At the very least, those who voted in favor of the IWR were "enablers" (you twelve-steppers probably know what I'm talking about). They did not cause the invasion to happen; however, they did not do all that they could to prevent it.

Furthermore, nobody is less to blame or more to blame for what happened. Our country is at fault. We invaded a sovereign nation, under false pretenses, based on information that was clearly not from a reliable source (GWBush).

And for that, we must be held responsible.

[Q]

41. Isn't it strange that one has to take a loyality oath around here...

...before they dare criticize the Dem party? All of us have done it...if for no other reason than to fend off the accusations of being 'for Nader' or a FReeper. We're becoming like the opposition when we accuse others of being 'disloyal' or worse simply for speaking their minds.

- If Democrats would have voted TOGETHER against the resolution...there is no friggin way that Bush* could have attacked Iraq. At the very least they could have put Bush* in a position of having to negotiate or compromise on a less vague resolution.

- The fact remains: the Dems and GOPers who voted for the resolution WANTED to go to war with Iraq...and damn the consequences. They didn't care about the evidence....or lack thereof.

51. yes it is strange

and it Does not bode well for things from a dispassionate, less partisan standpoint.

& a lot of people in the country are relatively apolitical and respond to the tactics of parties instead of the policies. People like that view politicos and partisans as being the problem regardless of the side they are on & when the two sidesuse similar tactics and evince similar attitudes (only mirrored) these apolitical people turn away. Might be why such a small percentage of people vote in this country.

[TeacherCreature]

35. bush would not have gone to war without that vote

stop buying in to the idea that the pResident is all powerful. If he is it is only because our representatives caved in to his wishes.

[TexasSissy]

19. Kerry answered this on I think Meet the Press.

He said that while he knew what the admin. represented as "the evidence" of WMD, what he did NOT know were the SOURCES of the supposed evidence. Congress now knows the sources, and it was well known at the time, by whoever had that knowledge, that those sources were known to be unreliable. But Kerry said that he did not know the sources until recently, so his mistake was that he trusted the President.

He trusted the admin. when they said the intel was good. He trusted the Prez when he said he'd use the authority to go before the U.N. and use diplomacy and every other means possible to avoid war, and only go to war as a last resort. Kerry says Bush failed to do those things; he instead rushed to war almost immediately.

I and others have a problem with Kerry's vote. I was shocked when Congress gave Bush that war authority...I wouldn't have trusted Bush. Although I hoped Bush would use diplomacy, as soon as I saw on CSPAN his speech to the U.N., I knew it was all over. His speech was arrogant, you're-gonna-do-this-or-else. I KNEW the timing of the war was so that it could be over in time for him to start campaigning.

So if I, an ordinary citizen, could see these things, how could Kerry not see them? Are the Congress members so close to the action that they lose sight of reality? Were the votes purely political and wimpy? I think the latter. BUT that's the past. Kerry is the only game in town. I'm voting for him. He has many good qualities and will be much better for the environment, the economy, and our safety than Bush.

The Dems seem to have recovered some of their spine in the last year or two, probably because of the anger of the public. I hope they have learned their lesson. So let's get on with it and win. Like another poster said above, KERRY ON!

[moondust]

23. It would have passed with or without JK's vote.

A serious presidential candidate could not afford to end up on the wrong side of the vote if they eventually DID find WMD. Call that cynical and political but the real cynical political move was forcing a vote on granting near-dictatorial power in the first place (before midterm elections).

I believe Scott Ritter himself has said in the past that the threat of force was sometimes necessary to force compliance.

[librechik]

30. remember all, we used to like it that Scott is a registered Repub

he's entitled to be in the wrong party, and to challenge Kerry on his fairly putrid Iraq vote. So do I. That doesn't mean I won't vote for him, and don't support him.

[Q]

32. Some have poor memories...

...when it comes to remembering what happened as Bush* was gearing up to attack Iraq. Democrats such as Kennedy, Gore and Byrd were giving moving speeches questioning the TIMING and justification for attacking Iraq. Certainly Kerry and others heard these speeches?

- I firmly believe that the DLC is behind the effort to HELP Bush* go to war. You may have noticed that most of the votes FOR the resolution came from DLCers like Lieberman or conservative Dems. Now these same DLCers can't or won't back down and will carry Bush's* war flag FOR him rather than admit they made a mistake and supported an illegal war. Making matters worse...they're ignoring the call for a war crimes trial and seem not to be bothered by the daily death of American soldiers and the thousands of Iraqis STILL dying for a lie.

- Bush* may have been the motivating factor behind the rush to war...but he couldn't have done so much damage in so little time without the help of the Democratic party.

[latebloomer]

37. The argument that "we were duped" falls flat

Ten million people in the streets knew. Why didn't Kerry know?

[MadHound]

39. Spot on again Q

And I would like to add one more thing to this. Kerry, in voting for the IWR, failed in his most basic duty as a Senator, that is representing the will of his constituents. At the time of the vote, messages to Congress were running 280-1 against the IWR. Polls nationwide were showing that people were wanting to wait on the vote, or any other action, until the inspectors completed their job. And the preliminary reports coming back from the inspection team were finding nothing, no nukes, no WMD, no military buildup. John Kerry failed to do his job and represent the will of his constituents on this vital issue, most likely because he already was planning on throwing his hat in the ring and didn't want to appear dovish. Thus, he put his personal aspirations above his job, and our soldiers and thousands of people in Iraq have paid a bloody price for his ambition. If he would do this on such a vital issue as war, what assurances that he won't do the same on the myriad of issues that he is going to deal with as President?

[Q]

42. Kerry or anyone else who voted for the 'resolution'...

...could be forgiven for that vote if they would admit the truth now. Saying they were 'misled' by Bush* just doesn't cut it.

- But the Dem leadership isn't against this unjust war...they're against HOW Bush* is waging it. But even that message isn't getting through...and leaves Bush* unchallenged about whether the US should even BE in Iraq.

[sangh0]

46. There is nothing to forgive Kerry for

as evidenced by the MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS who voted for Kerry without even asking for an apology

[DemonFighterLives]

44. Another 2 cents

I don't blame Ritter or anyone for asking questions. The vote for the IWR, the way I understand it, was to work with the UN and if the inspectors deemed it necessary, then to proceed towards war. It was not to give W unmitigated power. Most of the dems just swallowed big and allowed W to run roughshod over them and Iraq. Of course we were all aching over the 9/11 disaster. This was not the way to go about it.
I fail to see where Ritter was working for PNAC, in fact he was the lone voice of reason in the lead up to war.
Aside: The Dems. just stood around when the congressional black caucus was looking for senatorial support to investigate irregularities of the 2000 election. See Fahrenheit 911.
It is almost safe to say that our elected representatives are not looking out for our better interests. Why? Money? Power? Fear?
All that being said, Kerry is the only opportunity for us to get a semblance of our country back. And bring the troops home.

[Radical Activist]

47. Kerry has to fight with one arm tied behind his back

That's what we got when the party picked someone who voted for the Iraq war. This is why I felt the arguments about Kerry being more electable were wrong. Bush's two weakest points are the Iraq war and his trade policy that sends jobs overseas. Kerry supported both, so we're left with half-hearted campaign themes and a lot of people still believing Bush's lies.
Kerry will win anyway, but only because people hate Bush.

[sampsonblk]

65. Kerry is going to need all our help

Picking Kerry may have seemed a great idea at the time, but more and more its looking like we may have shot ourselves in the foot here. Its going to take all our efforts to help push Kerry over the top. His arguments are not all that compelling.

I am glad that he's starting to hit back at Bush though. That's good news.

Edit: changed title

[KoKo]

77. Two arms "tied behind the back." John Edwards is my Senator and he

threw protestors who came to his office with a petition against the WAR in jail. I met one of the mothers of those students.

How could neither of them know the "intelligence" was WRONG! WE KNEW!

Their arms are there "tied behind their backs"...and it offends them.. or they made a decision about it...political gain? Or, principle?

[WilliamPitt]

48. Scott Ritter, from my book - PLEASE READ THIS

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

PITT: Why did Iraq destroy the weapons instead of turning them over?

RITTER: In many cases the Iraqis were trying to conceal the weapons' existence. And the unilateral destruction could have been a ruse to maintain a cache of weapons of mass destruction by claiming they'd been destroyed.

It's important to not give Iraq the benefit of the doubt. Iraq has lied to the international community. It has lied to inspectors. There are many people who believe Iraq still seeks to retain the capability to produce these weapons.

==================

In an exchange I had with Ritter a couple of weeks ago at the Vets for Peace conference, I asked if the UNSCOM inspections from '91-'98 would have been effective without the threat and/or use of force. He said the inspections would have been totally ineffective without the threat and/or use of force.

Above, he says, "It's important to not give Iraq the benefit of the doubt. Iraq has lied to the international community. It has lied to inspectors."

I get frustrated with people who manipulate the timeline and the circumstances to fit into an anti-Kerry argument. I'm saddened that Ritter is doing this, too. The timeline:

1. US drafts Res. 1441 with the words "weapons inspections" in it;

2. UN Security Council approves Res. 1441 unanimously;

3. Kerry and the Senate approve the IRW to provide the Res. 1441 weapons inspectors with the threat of force necessary to make inspections effective;

...and here's the important bit...

4. Bush pisses all over the inspectors and stacks 250,000 troops on the border of Iraq.

The UN-approved Res. 1441 inspections would have been useless as tits on a boar hog without the threat of force. Ritter worked effectively for seven years with the threat of force in his pocket, and Hans Blix needed the same threat to get his job done.

Kerry made the right vote. Bush perverted it.

[WilliamPitt]

52. !

[sangh0]

59. Silly Will

They don't need your steenkin facts

[Q]

68. I respect your opinion...and that of Ritter's...

...and I'm quite aware of the timeline. I have it documented in archives.

- But I'm also aware that Kerry and others knew that Bush* was full of shit and was INVENTING reasons to invade Iraq. The Dems that DIDN'T vote for the resolution knew what was going on...that the Bushies were pushing for a war that had nothing to do with terrorism or 9-11. And isn't THAT the bottom line?

- Bush* contends that we're fighting 'terrorists' in Iraq and that it's an essential part of the war on terrorism. But that's a lie...isn't it? So why then ARE we in Iraq? The answer is that Bush* had plans to invade BEFORE he 'took' office, invented a reason to attack and pressured Dems to go along with him or risk being called 'unpatriotic'.

- I'm proud of those Democrats who asked the tough questions and refused to sign on to Bush's* resolution until they were answered. Their questions were never answered...so they refused to vote for it. Kerry's vote was all about politics....not the reality on the ground.

[KoKo]

76. Those of us who KNEW Intelligence was wrong will keep Kerry's "feet to

the fire on this." Just as those of us who knew the election of 2000 was stolen by the Supremes, Bush/Baker will never forgive or foget. And, we "patriotic/principled Americans should NEVER FORGET and ONLY FORGIVE...when it's made right once again! No convenient "unity pardons" for "sins of the former President" no more talk of "Move On...it's done with."

Until the Repug cesspool is cleaned out from the Nixon days, there will never be a Democracy left in America. My ancestors didn't come here to relive this shit...and I won't put up with it any more either! I will not forgive until I see a total cleansign of the PNAC'ers and other hangers on like Baker/Kissinger and everyone who profited out of the folly and destruction their policies have wreaked on the American Citizen since Nixon's days...and maybe even well before...since the end of WWII. I've had enough of it. Lies and Death and Wars and Money down rat holes....I won't give up.

[genius]

60. Admitting he messed up by can't hurt him. He was following Bush's lead.

[FrankBooth]

63. I like Scott Ritter

but using this logic, I could challenge him for his Bush/Cheney vote in the 2000 election.

There is a time and a place for this discussion, and that is AFTER Bush and his gang of criminals are thrown out of office. Then it is time to make Kerry accountable.

[DemonFighterLives]

73. B*sh is the common denominator

And the skunk in the woodpile. Wellstone went against the war and look what it got him.

[KoKo]

75. Kick.......

:kick: