Kerry and the War Resolution

[erpowers]

How do other DU members feel about Kerry saying that he would have voted for the war resolution even if he known that no WMD would be fould. I will still vote for Kerry, but I do not like the fact that he would have given Bush those powers regardless of the evidence. I do not believe any president Democrat or Republican should have the power to declare war. In addition, I think it hurts Kerry campaign for him to come out in support of the war resolution now. It makes him look more like Bush. In addition, I think it takes away some of his ability to protest Bush decision and actions. How can he critize Bush on the war in Iraq if he would have still have given him the power to wage it?

[swag]

1. I kind of feel like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=605385

[sangh0]

2. Why do so many PROGRESSives obsess about the past?

.

[JI7]

4. Bush claims to be a conservative

doesn't mean he is .

[JI7]

3. same way he criticizes Bush for Afghanistan which he voted for also

[emulatorloo]

5. And What Else Did Kerry Say? He Said This:

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html

[JI7]

6. silly Kerry, asking questions that require more than "yes or no"

why does he have to be so nuanced and complex. :)

[MercutioATC]

7. Kerry just continues to be dead wrong on this issue.

I've said it before, Kerry's vote on the IWR shows me he's one of two things:

1) a political opportunist who votes the way he has to to get re-elected, or

2) a complete moron who trusts an opposition President surrounded by hawks to "do the right thing".

I hope it's #1, but you'll forgive me for not being thrilled with that explanation.

Whether this hurts him in the election or not, it's made me an "anti-Bush" voter instead of a "pro-Kerry" voter.

[emulatorloo]

8. Why don't you read what he actually said rather than reacting to

misleading headlines or bad reporter spin? And then analyse it.

Does he say Bush did the right thing by invading and rushing to war? No.

Does he hold Bush accountable for manipulating bad intel? yes

[MercutioATC]

9. I DID read it. I think he should be admitting his mistake instead of

continuing to try to defend the vote. Yes, we know Bush was wrong. Yes, we know he manipulated intel.

The fact is, though, Kerry still voted to give him the authority to start the war. That smacks of either political opportunism or sheer idiocy to me.

[emulatorloo]

12. Can't you abstract it for a minute - the principal versus the execution?

You are hung up on the specifics of Bush abuses and Iraq war.

What is wrong w the principal of working to disarm countries who could be threats thru inspections, UN resolutions, sanctions, diplomacy, alliances w allies etc? With war as a last resort after all else had failed?

That Bush abused this is BAD. The principal is not bad - weapons non-proliferation.

[MercutioATC]

14. The "principle" of making the world a less violent place is fine.

Voting to give Bush the power to wage war to do that was abysmally stupid. Kerry didn't vote on a principle. He voted on a specific resolution that gave Bush Congressional approval to start a war.

If I hand a gun to somebody that's known to be violent and he kills somebody, am I absolved from guilt if I say "I trusted him to do the right thing"? That's what Kerry did. He voted to put the gun in Bush's hands.

[Sparkly]

15. I don't hold Kerry responsible for Bush's actions

That's the difference. Kerry voted for something that said "Get the UN Security Council on board, get the inspectors in, and get back to us."

No, it was not up to Kerry to read Bush's mind or see into the future; it doesn't make him a "moron" to vote on the issue at hand, rather than to guess one way or the other about what Saddam would/wouldn't do, what the UN would/wouldn't do, and then what Bush would/wouldn't do. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

What do you think of France's position as this developed? They approved of the Security Council Resolution that effectively said/did the same thing.

Here's a good site for a concise history:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

[MercutioATC]

18. Neither do I. I hold Kerry responsible for Kerry's actions.

Kerry voted "yea" on a resolution that gave an opposition President surrounded by hawks Congressional approval to wage war. Yes, Bush lied about how he would use that approval, but Kerry's still at fault for giving him the opportunity.

France's vote on 1441 was nothing like this. France was against the use of force from the onset and refused to endorse any resolution that authorized it (hence the "serious consequences" language). Most of the nations that supported 1441 were under the impression that a further consensus would have to be reached before the use of force was authorized. Only a few countries disagreed with this interpretation later, when the U.S. decided to use force (arguably in violation of 1441).

The U.N. member nations voted to issue a resolution that did NOT authorize the use of force. Kerry voted to support a resolution that DID authorize the use of force.

There's a large difference.

[Sparkly]

27. There was still an "If/then" promise

IF X happens and Y doesn't, we'll use force. All other options will be exhausted first. That was stated and to some extent written into both resolutions.

France wanted the use of force to be non-automatic, but the resolution still reiterated a strong warning of force which always had to be there; but as you say, the US went ahead anyway. Should France have known that would happen and thus opposed the resolution?

Democrats wanted the use of force to be non-automatic as well -- read Kerry's statements:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

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

In the resolution:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

Instead, Bush got the UN onboard for the resolution insisting upon inspections, but went ahead with force without them.

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Again, Bush invaded despite compliance with inspections.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Since inspections were under way, force wasn't required as a defense, so Bush misused this authority.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

He did not show this.

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In fact, he did withdraw resources from Afghanistan. So he didn't comply with this, either.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

The resolution did not give Congressional support for any and all willy-nilly misuse of the military Bush decided upon.

[emulatorloo]

17. So much hindsight. . .

promises were made - Powell apparently told them that diplomacy was going to be followed, that GWB would not rush to war, that they would do the right thing w inspectors UN etc etc.

Now of course we know that Powell was "out of the loop". . . .

[MercutioATC]

20. I'm allowing for hindsight...if Kerry said that he'd not have voted for

the IWR in light of what we've learned since then, I'd have a lot more respect for him.

[emulatorloo]

22. He is not going to "Flip Flop" on weapons non-proliferation

What if he becomes president, and there really is a nuclear threat?

He goes to congress to ask for help w sanctions inspectors, etc etc.

Then what?

[MercutioATC]

23. Do what he should have insisted Bush do...

Make a case for war to Congress. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Congress isn't supposed to abdicate their authority like they did.

[emulatorloo]

29. The case was made they needed threat of force to get inspectors in

and to get UN to back it up.

That was the case, and assurances were given that diplomacy would be followed and the Pres would meet conditions and come back to congress.

Bush abused it and lied about it. That is the bottom line.

[MercutioATC]

43. The "bottom line" is that Kerry trusted Bush's "assurances"

...and there was nothing in the resolution that prevented Bush from doing exactly what he did.

[sangh0]

49. Your "bottom line" is upside down

IWR required that Bush* send a letter proving that an invasion of Iraq was NECESSARY in order to protect national security.

[MercutioATC]

53. The resolution had no teeth. There was NOTHING preventing Bush

from doing whatever the hell he wanted (as we've seen).

Did I miss something? Did Kerry recommend Bush be censured for not complying with the resolution?

[sangh0]

54. With or without IWR, there was nothing stopping Bush* from invading

Did I miss something? Did Kerry recommend Bush be censured for not complying with the resolution?

My guess would be that you missed the fact that the majority in the Senate is Republican.

[MercutioATC]

56. That's true, but the President cannot declare war.

That's a power reserved for Congress.

What does the Senate having a Republican majority have to do with it? Would a vote result in Bush being censured? Probably not. The statement would be made, however.

[sangh0]

57. Congress didn't declare war.

and the President doesn't need a Declaration of War to initiate a military action (cf Viet Nam, Kosovo, Panama, Grenanda, Afghanistan, etc)

[PeacefulWarrior]

42. Join the parade

At this point, I don't see what the difference is when it comes to Kerry on this issue.

If we win back the House and Senate (looking more and more likely), what difference would it make? Why not go with my heart and vote for Nader?

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Several reasons

One, we will not retake Congress if Bush wins reelection. Public perceptions are linked between the standard bearers of the Parties and the Parties themselves. Many people buy just one one message, and the key messengers are Bush and Kerry. A groundswell for Kerry will help us in Congress. A comeback by Bush will hurt us. It likely would swing Congressional votes by two or three percent either way.

And the issue is larger than Iraq. Bush-Cheney are PNAC all the way. They want to remake the world through aggressive use of the U.S. military. Kerry agonizes over how to best handle a specific dictatorship with known previous use of WMD. Bush-Cheney are much more aggressively oriented than Kerry-Edwards, period.

Voting for Nader now is just validating Republican dirty politics, since Nader needed so much Republican help to get onto many State ballots. If that tactic works for them, and Nader pulls any size vote, that will encourage Republicans to regularly field and support front candidates to divide the Democratic vote, sometimes Greens, sometimes otherwise weak contenders in Democratic primaries.

This current Administration is a threat to the American Constitution, they must be defeated as soundly as possible to discourage anyone thinking that their type of scorched Earth politics might work again in the future. If it were a Chuck Hegel running against John Kerry, I might not feel as strongly about this.

[MercutioATC]

48. Kerry's still one hell of a lot better than Bush.

Yes, I may think Kerry's a great example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party, but he'd be twice the President on his worst day than Bush will ever be.

He might be too much of a politician to effect real change, but he's not actively working against us.

Step #1 is to get rid of Bush. Step #2 is to make this Party stand for something again.

[WI_DEM]

10. well I've written on the other threads regarding this issue so I will

here too. I can only speak for myself but if I had been a senator and initially gave Bush the authority to wage war--if need be--and now knowing everything that happened; the lies, deceptions, faulty intelligence, and Bush's inclination to rush to war to avenge daddy. I couldn't vote for it--knowing all of this. It also took precious resources away from the real war on terror and capturing Bin Ladden. It broke world wide sympathy and support we had after 9/11. It is inconceivable to ever trust this president again.

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. The first problem with IWR that I have is Congress

is handing their Constitutionally stated authorization to declare war on a silver platter to a President. It's probably not the first time they've done it and they'ld explain it away on precedent but I still think :wtf: ??? In doing so, not a single member of Congress voting in the affirmative is upholding their oath of office and any President signing the resolution is in the same boat.

As to Kerry's response, it was way too "nuanced" and just didn't sit well with me. Even Rockefeller said he would have voted no in hindsight. But I think Kerry's between a rock and a hard place on this. If he would have said yes in hindsight, he's a flip-flopper. As it stands, he's just like Bush.

It doesn't matter at this point which way he would have voted. He would have been smeared as A) The soft-on-defence liberal or B) Already Bush-lite so why change candidate.

[emulatorloo]

13. Did you read what else he said?

how is this just like Bush:


"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. You missed my point. It's the spin

from the other side that would and IS promoting his vote of going to war (period). End of story. The followup for phase II/III plan is not being heard.

Kerry's statement about a rush to war on faulty intelligence and misleading America yet he'd still vote for it just doesn't jive. You can't have it both ways. If the intelligence had said there were no WMD, would he still have voted for it? I think so. Maybe it might have been for 'humanitarian' reasons, but that just says to me it would have been for any reason given.

Still, I think it was wreckless to go on a campaign to occupy Iraq before Afghanistan was taken care of. It was wreckless to go without greater support from our long-time allies, both in financial and military terms. And those things being said, the fact that Kerry voted to go into it, yes, I have some problems with it.

[Sparkly]

19. Do you understand

that Kerry did not vote for what you describe here:

It was wreckless to go without greater support from our long-time allies, both in financial and military terms. And those things being said, the fact that Kerry voted to go into it, yes, I have some problems with it.

The resolution said go to the UN, get the Security Council on board, get a resolution to insist on inspections, and get back to us. Kerry didn't see into the future to know what the UN would/wouldn't do, what Saddam would/wouldn't do, and what the Chimp would/wouldn't do.

[Norquist Nemesis]

25. He voted to give him the power

to declare war. If Bush didn't follow the IWR, Kerry needs to take strong action and lead the steps to have Bush punished. But he can't do that because he DID vote to give him the power and has stated that he thinks a President should have those powers.

[Sparkly]

40. Would you please cite where it says he can "Declare War?"

Recognize that the Commander in Chief already had the power to order military attacks.

[Nederland]

44. Wrong

The resolution said go to the UN, get the Security Council on board, get a resolution to insist on inspections, and get back to us.

This is dead wrong. I suggest you actually read the IWR before spouting such nonsense. The IWR resolution requires that the President get back to Congress within 48 hours after taking military action.

The important thing to understand is that in every resolution of this type, two things are specified:

1) What is to be done.
2) Who has the authority to decree that what was specified in #1 was in fact done.

The "what" is not in dispute. You are correct in asserting that the IWR asks the President to proceed with certain diplomatic and inspection efforts. However, the IWR also declares that the President and the President alone shall have the power to determine whether or not such efforts have been pursued to the necessary extent.

Here is the relevant text:


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Now you can argue all you want that Bush failed to pursue diplomatic options fully. This however, is irrelevant because the IWR resolution specifically says that it is the President that gets to decided what constitutes sufficient efforts. It was, in the words of Senator Byrd and 22 other Democratic Senators, a blank check for war. When you insist that it was not a blank check for war, you are saying that Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy and the strongest Democrats in the Senate were wrong.

I'm sorry. Kennedy and Byrd were right and you are wrong. It was a blank check for war and Kerry voted for it.

[Sparkly]

58. You're only looking at Section 3.

Section 2 expresses support for the diplomatic efforts, and in fact Bush did go to the UN, did get the UN Security Council onboard to pass a resolution insisting on inspections. The "get back to us" I referred to is in Section 4, not the 48 hours explanation following military action -- which was also already established before the IWR. (I didn't mean to imply that the president had to consult Congress again before ordering an invasion, but he didn't have to anyway.)

I think you're confusing powers that the president already had with what this resolution did. The "authorization" was already there via the Constitution and even more specifically the law passed after 9/11, cited in the resolution:

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)

The "bomb now, explain it within 48 hours" part was from the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

I think many are also confused about "going to war" vs. "declaring war." Only Congress "declares war," but presidents have more often ordered military invasions without the "declaration." It's confusing because they still refer to it as "war," a la "The War President" (or even "the war on drugs").

Basically, this was an expression of support. It wasn't a big endowment of powers, or "blank check" that Bush didn't already have. It lent Congressional "authority" to the UN effort to get inspections, backed with the threat of force, more as a show of unity or greater clout than anything else.

If you think I'm wrong about any of this, you're free to challenge it. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't use phrases like "spouting nonsense." :)

[Nederland]

59. Exactly

Basically, this was an expression of support.

I couldn't agree more. By voting for the IWR, Kerry was expressing his support for the Bush to do whatever he deemed necessary with regard to protect US interests and enforcing UN resolutions. Senator Byrd called that a "blank check for war". I call it a "blank check for war". You can call it "an expression of support" if you like, but to me they mean the same thing.

[emulatorloo]

21. Please separate the principal and execution

Princinpal - Weapon non-proliferation. . .diplomacy, inspectors, UN, allies, etc.

Execution - Willy Nilly Bush Rush to War.

How is it contradictory to believe the principal but reject the execution?

Why do you want Kerry to "Flip-Flop" for Bush?

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. How is even relevant when you vote to abdicate the oath

of upholding the Constitution? It really doesn't matter if the resolution detailed principles mandating jump three times and clap your hands and was executed with cartwheels. The bottom line is IWR gave the President, not Congress, the power to declare war. That's what Kerry voted for.

[emulatorloo]

28. did it really?

and weren't they told that they needed threat of force to get inspectors back in?

[Sparkly]

30. He didn't declare war.

That's not what the resolution did.

[MercutioATC]

50. You're right. He gave that power to Bush.

...in the process thwarting the systems of checks and balances that our Constitution is based upon.

[sangh0]

52. No, the Constitution gave that power to the CINC

If you had real respect (and knowledge) of the Constitution, you'd know that no legislation can grant a power to a governmental agent. Only the COnstitution can do that.

[George_Bonanza]

47. You're dead on

If Kerry said he regretted his vote, Bush would pull out all of Kerry's previous anti-Saddam statements, etc. and further make the case for Kerry the flip-flopper. We can only hope that as mired Kerry's stance on Iraq is politically, people will hate Bush ever more on Iraq and let Kerry by on this issue that is his Achilles Heel.

[Norquist Nemesis]

63. Thank you!

People can parse words till the cows come home on this one. But it's a problem for Kerry. He could have ended it early, even with a "I still would have voted yes answer" by including the words "as President I would have" and demonstrated a difference to the undecideds.

Make no mistake. I'll vote for Kerry. That doesn't mean I'm required to rah rah every spoken word or vote. As far as the IWR, I don't. But in the political arena he lost the opportunity with his responding statement on this vote.

I'm hoping right along with you. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. First, I will be generous, and make the following assumption

John Kerry was only referring to, had he known then that there were not WMD to be found in Iraq after all, he still would have voted for the IWR. I don't think Kerry was saying had he known how bad Bush would have botched going to the U.N., or how badly Bush would have managed a post invasion Iraq, that he would have given Bush that authority. Kerry focused on what was the proper authority to give an American President, not what was the proper authority to give an incompetent President who was hell bent on starting a War. I have always thought that it was a mistake for Kerry and Edwards to vote yes on the IWR precisely because I knew George W. Bush could not be trusted on this matter, and they should have known also.

However, given that Kerry said Yes, I understand why he focused his answer on the matter of WMD only. Kerry had to give as close to a crisp Yes or No answer as possible to that challenge question, or he would have been taken apart as a "flip flopper" who talks in long evasive political mumbo jumbo, rather than being a decisive leader. I wish John Kerry had instead said: "NO, and here is why. Bush abused the authority given him. Had I known he would so mishandle the authority given him, of course I would have voted to prevent that. It is a sad day when the American People and their elected Representatives in Congress can not trust the word and basic Judgment of their President."

Unfortunately, from my perspective, Kerry did not say NO. Instead he focused on what he believes the legitimate authority of a President to protect the interests of the American people should be, rather than how that specific authority was used or abused by Bush. Kerry defended giving Bush, as America's President, the authority granted by the IWR. Kerry addressed Bush's abuse of authority in his follow up questions to Bush, about why subsequently Bush took the specific actions that he did (or didn't as the case may be) after that IWR vote. I do not personally subscribe to Kerry's position, either in theory, or in practice for this specific case, but I do recognize that Kerry is not now saying, knowing what he does today, that he would still have voted Yes on the IWR, and in so doing implicitly endorse all of George W. Bush's subsequent failed policies and actions.

That still leaves a big issue to reconcile. If Kerry knew then what he knows today, Kerry would have been aware there weren't WMD for Inspectors to find in Iraq had we sent them, so why (again assuming Kerry knew then what he knows now) threaten war over needing to search for weapons he knew did not exist?

The best argument left is that the World had good reasons to not trust Hussein. Hussein had agreed to U.N. Inspectors as a condition for the end of hostilities that left him in power. They had caught him lying in the past, perhaps Hussein would have restarted his weapons program again after he felt confident that a Bush Administration coming into office would not attack him. We needed inspectors on the scene, under this argument, to ensure that Hussein did not restart his WMD programs. This argument circles back to the "Hussein was a bad man who can not be trusted that we are better off without" argument. Like it or not, that's what we got.

I am not happy with Kerry's stated position, but I don't think Kerry would have started a war with Iraq, and I know that Bush did. My choice is still clear.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Plus Kerry had another problem in answering No

John Edwards had already answered Yes, he still stands by his IWR Vote, knowing what he does today. So the Republicans were waiting to use a split in the Democratic Ticket positions on the core Iraq issue against us had Kerry said otherwise.

It's not that the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees have to exactly agree on everything, but Iraq is a central issue in this campaign. Plus, the Republicans were already gunning for Edwards as not having sufficient experience on National Security matters. Kerry promised, before selecting Edwards, to pick a VP candidate with the ability to step in and handle matters of War and Peace should that ever be needed. If Kerry then publicly disagreed with his running mate, who he had hand selected, on the central issue regarding National Security for this Election, it would just give significant ammunition to the Republicans.

People; Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and Al Sharpton were our strongest "anti-war" candidates, not John Kerry or John Edwards, but I place only Joe Lieberman firmly in the "pro-war" category. Frankly, this is one of the reasons why I did not at first support either John Kerry for the Presidential nod, nor John Edwards for the VP nod. Kerry may have had a little more rhetorical "wiggle room" on his IWR vote before Edwards was added to the ticket. There were trade offs made with that, Edwards brought a lot to our ticket, but a crisp clean sweeping anti Bush on Iraq stance was not enhanced by adding Edwards. Yet a lot of activists on this board chose not to dwell on that then, so why dwell on it now? I knew what we were getting with Kerry Edwards, and it is a hell of a lot better than what we have in Bush Cheney, including their positions on the Iraq War and the IWR. Bush Cheney have a PNAC agenda, Kerry Edwards do not. And the difference between our ticket and the Republican one on domestic issues can barely be charted, the gap is that large.

[Inland]

31. Look, the problem wasn't giving A president authority, but

giving it to THIS president as if Bush would actually work in the best interest of the country. If one had a Clinton or a Kerry with that same resolution, the war wouldn't have happened. Kerry, to paraphrase Animal House, fucked up--he trusted them. He trusted Bush and the competence and bona fides of the adminstration. Bush abused that trust as he abuses all the trust given him.

Sure, one could have known that Bush would drag us into war if he could and if you give him an inch he'll take a mile. And one could also have believed Bush when he said he needed the resolution to avoid war, and that he felt he had the authority anyway.

[MadHound]

32. I feel about like a did before he made this statement

That Kerry didn't do his job, and represent the will of his constituents. With messages to both the House and Senate running 280-1 against the IWR, with all major polls showing that the American people wanted the inspectors to do their job before handing out war-making power to Bush, with millions, both at home and abroad, out in the street protesting the IWR, it should have been obvious to Kerry that the will of his constituents was against the IWR. Yet he failed to fulfill his job duties, and voted for the IWR. Such a move calls into questioning how well Kerry will respond to the will of the people once he takes the office of president.

It does disappoint me that he is saying that he would have voted for the IWR anyway, knowing what he knows now. It shows up that he is either a political animal, casting a political vote so that when he runs for the presidency he wouldn't be called dovish. Or worse yet that he is indeed a war hawk, though I truly suspect the former is the real reason he voted for the IWR. Either way, it is apparent that he failed to fulfill his job duties, being as that he didn't represent the will of his constituents. This is the most disappointing, and disturbing thing to me.

[Sparkly]

33. It was to put some teeth into the call for the UN resolution

On inspections.

And it did that.

And we got the inspections.

I don't blame Kerry for not being clairvoyant about what would happen next.

[MadHound]

35. Oh, so that is the latest spin, eh?

Allow Kerry an out for neglecting his duties as a Senator. Allow Kerry an out for not using the brains God gave him to realize that he was writing Bush a blank check(funny how millions, at home and worldwide saw through Bush's little lies, yet Kerry couldn't:eyes:)
Allow Kerry an out for casting a vote motivated by political expediancy rather than what his constituents(whose views he is supposed to represent, not his own)wanted. And then allow him an out when he basically admits that he would do it all over again anyway, even though all information shown since shows there was no need! Please friend, stop the spinning. This is wrong, plain and simple.
The man made a politically motivated vote so that he wouldn't be called dovish in his run for the White House, and any other explanation is just trying to sugar coat this bitter pill.

So, how are you going to explain it all away when four years from now Kerry still has us in Iraq? Don't laugh, that is a serious question, one that is becoming more of a possibility every day. How long before we see Democrats actually praising the war, since Kerry will be the one running it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Organizing doesn't stop after a Kerry victory

Back in the 60's I protested against a different Democratic President, LBJ. If need be I can do the same with Kerry.

There is one lesson we all should have learned after the 2002 Congressional Elections, we can't sit back and blindly trust Democratic Leadership. I backed Clark this time, others concerned about Iraq backed Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton. Sometimes a sweeping change takes more than two years to bring about. Those Goldwater Republicans eventually got what they wanted, after all, despite getting slaughtered in 1964.

Bush is a cancer for more reasons than I can count. I may normally prefer holistic and Eastern preventative medicine approaches to Western major surgery, but now I say, give me that scalpel. Kerry is the most immediate tool at hand to use to eliminate Bush, we can talk about what is next in December.

[MadHound]

38. So, somehow voting in a war hawk, and then protesting his policies

Vis a vis the war is somehow supposed to change things? If Kerry gets in, he is going to feel that he has a mandate to do what he wishes. Besides, do you honestly think that a man who did not listen to the wishes of his constituents when he was Senator is going to listen to the wishes of the American people when he is President? Sorry friend, but the time to do a deal is now, as has always been the case in politics. You say you protested LBJ in the sixties, then you are well aware of the power that Eugene McCarthy's run had on Kennedy, Humphrey, and even Nixon. As soon as McCarthy started getting votes by promising to end the war, all of the rest went dovish in return(to one degree or another). This is how deals are done friend, right now, we the people hold something that Kerry greatly desires, our vote. We should put pressure on him now to come up with a solid plan for getting us out of Iraq ASAP, rather than allowing him to meander about with vague promises of "significant number of troops" and "before the end of my first term".

If you hold the heat off of him now, he will be flame proof once he is elected friend. We have something he wants, he should be forced to earn it, now just given our votes because he is ABB. That kind of thinking simply plays into the good cop/bad cop game that the two party/same corporate master system of government has foisted upon us.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Ah but McCarthy ran against a sitting Democratic President in Primaries

McCarthy wasn't attacking Johnson for not being dovish enough while Johnson was actually running against Barry Goldwater in a General Election. So taking your historical precedent, John Kerry would not want to see a Democratic left wing challenge in New Hampshire to his reelection bid in 2008. That threat provides activists with some leverage against Kerry that could be used during his first term. The mandate in 2004 that most concerns me is the mandate George W. Bush will feel that he has if he is reelected.

I do not accept your underlying logic that anti war criticism of John Kerry over the next 90 days will make him more beholden to those Democrats who attack him on that basis, or more responsive to those views. John Kerry is not a stupid man, he may be wrong in his political calculations, but he is not stupid. It is not as if we need to "wake him up" to the existence of strong anti war sentiments within the Democratic Party. He knew full well of that when he made his recent statements about the IWR, and he knows he defeated the "anti war" candidates in the Primaries, not the other way around. If Kerry is subjected to internal Democratic attacks over his War policies over the next 90 days and still wins, he will be more, not less, dismissive of that constituency. "I don't need them", would be a logical conclusion. And if Kerry loses, well then we have 4 more years of George Bush, don't we?

I disagree that the time to do a deal is now. The best time to "do a deal" was to nominate a different Democrat to be President, but John Kerry got the nomination. The next best time to do a deal is after Kerry is elected. Kerry will need every vote that he can get to pass legislation in Congress. Progressive Democrats in Congress should not let their votes be taken for granted, and we should not let those elected Democrats take our votes for granted either. Support Kerry now against the greater evil Bush, and call in our chips when Kerry needs them to govern.

John Kerry is not going to enter into a public intra Democratic Party debate over policies now while he is attempting to stay on message against Bush, just ain't gonna happen, not during the heat of a final Election campaign sprint. Kerry's past positions on Iraq can be called literally divisive ones within the Democratic Party. Forcing a focus onto those divides now takes focus off the issues that unite us against Bush. And it will allow the media to cover an internal Democratic split story rather than the issues George Bush would rather not be talked about. And if we try to make Kerry back peddle on his statements now it will play into Bush's attempt to dismiss Kerry as a flip flopper.

This is reality as I see it. If we could not at the very least get Kerry to pick a clear cut "anti-war" Democrat as his VP, we will not force substantiative changes on him over the next 90 days. Now the focus is on the pitch, not the content, of policy. Now the focus is on 30 second sound bites, and on tripping Bush up, and on seeming strong enough, and compassionate enough, and likable enough, for people in Iowa and Ohio to envision Kerry as their President. Campaign pledges historically don't mean that much, no matter who makes them. To be honest I don't care much either way now what pledge Kerry does or does not make over the next 90 days. For better or worse, he will still be John Kerry. No deep political soul searching is going on now, or deal making, mostly it's just stump speeches and preparing for debates. Now is not the time to second guess the pitch, the ball is already in the air heading toward the batter, just get ready to field it if it's hit in your direction.

[MadHound]

51. In other words, to all of the anti-war protestors out there

Sit down, shut up and vote for Kerry:eyes:

Well, if the man gets in, we're going to looking at another LBJ. He will have his mandate, and feel free to do what he wants. If it is politically expedient to ramp up the war, he will, for he will think he has a mandate. And trust me, come '06 or '08, the Dems will be wanting to look pro-war alright, we just have to remember back to the days of Vietnam and see how many Dems then stood up and were counted.

I have to disagree with you friend, the anti-war crowd has the clout right now, not after the election, to force Kerry into a position to get us out of Iraq now. If we don't use it, we will lose it. But either way friend, I'll see you out on the streets, protesting another hawkish Dem. Til then!

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Yes, we may well end up carrying a banner together.

We are disagreeing about tactics, not goals. I think our added pressure on Kerry now, for various reasons, is more likely to help Bush get reelected than it is to result in any Kerry policy change promises ultimately worth more than the paper they could be printed on. Like Bush, Kerry is calculating the effect he thinks his chosen words will have on specific voters now more than he is reevaluating his actual positions. I have no doubt that a second term of America under George W. Bush is far more dangerous to us and the world than a first term of John Kerry will be, so I defend Kerry as the better choice in this specific campaign. You think differently, on the first point at least.

But I think you are being pessimistic on how long it would take to cause changes in the Democratic Party if Kerry is elected. Johnson won in 1964, and I believe RFK would have been President in 1968 had he not been assassinated.

[Sparkly]

39. It's not spin, it's the truth

Bush would have been quite happy to attack without the UN at all; he also didn't require pre-approval from Congress. The IWR didn't give him something he didn't already have in that regard.

What it did do was give him a weightier threat of force to take to the UN to get inspections. And the UN resolution passed. And inspectors were in Iraq as a result. Is there something there you disagree with? Please read both resolutions in full, if you haven't.

As for representing constituencies, here in the US support for the war was over 70% in March and April of 2003.

There is no "explaining away." How to handle Iraq from January 2005 on is a separate question, and one that's been discussed here at length, as well.

[MadHound]

46. Sorry, but here is the truth

Bush couldn't go to war without the IWR. Read your Constitution, Congress is the only entity who can declare war. Yes, he possibly could have shoehorned in some way around it, but the outcome would have been highly doubtful, and too costly politically speaking for Bush to have attempted it. Bush needed the IWR to go to war, after all, its not called the Iraq WAR Resolution for nothing. That is the truth.

Kerry's constituency was seeing through the deceptions, as was the majority of people here in the US, and around the world. His constituency didn't want the IWR to pass, yet Kerry went ahead and voted for it anyway, going squarely against the wishes of his constituency. This is, after all, a represenative democracy, where the senator or Congressman answers to the will of his constituents. He failed in the most important of his job duties, representing the will of the people who elected him Senator. That is the truth.

And could I see a source for your 70% figure. Here are some sources for my figures: <http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/4911975.htm>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/14/world/main536409.shtml>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml>
<http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030304.liasson.html>
<http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/iraq/articles/0221poll.html>

Sorry friend, but all you are doing is simply repeating the spin that the Kerry camp is putting out there to correct this major gaffe. Sad to say, I think it provides a window into Kerry's soul, and it isn't pretty.

[Barret]

62. War powers act

would have prevented it. A president can only deploy troops for 90 days with out consent from congress per the act. THAT is why the regime needed the resolution.

[sangh0]

37. I support Kerry

Always have, always will. I'm not likely to be persuaded by people who have sacrificed nothing that Kerry, who has risked it all in service to this nation, is wrong for his vote.

[Barret]

61. <sigh>

It doesn't matter if those of us already in his base support him. What matters is the middle - many of whom who will not vote for him simply because he is not bush. This statement has turned many people off, and the polls reflect it.

[Barret]

60. I think it could have cost him the election

and I am not kidding.

I just saw a report on CNN. The only thing going through my head was "fucking stupid". They showed Bush asking if he would have gone in, CNN showing a clip of him saying he would, and then Bush afterward thanking him for the answer. They also showed polls indicating there is now a 1% difference between the two after the statement.

Kerry just lost his ability to attack bush on Iraq. How the hell can he criticize the regimes war when the media is now reporting he would have done the same? He has shot him self in the foot.

So now I don't know what is going to happen. Kerry could have floored bush on Iraq, (one of bush's biggest fuck ups) yet now that will not be possible. Now he is going to have to run on something else, and with the Iraq option off the table I don't know if it will be enough.