One more time on IWR for those who just don't get it:

[Jackpine Radical]

Kerry's vote was not to go to war.

The vote gave Bush authority to use the full range of options, including war, in dealing with what many thought was a dangerous situation. To do less would have handicapped the President in his dealings, including any attempt to re-open inspections. Remember that Saddam had only submitted to inspections because of the threat of military force. Scott Ritter said that. We needed to give Bush the authorization so that he might negotiate effectively. The point is that Bush then went on to misuse his authorization by going to war as the first option rather than the last one. The wrong decision was made by Bush, not by Kerry.

Furthermore, had Bush not gotten the IWR, the Repugs would have used that fact as a precedent against some future Dem president--maybe even Kerry himself--to cripple him in some future foreign policy crisis.

Disclaimer:
I opposed the war from the beginning, and opposed IWR when it happened, but can certainly see some points on the other side of the issue.

[welshTerrier2]

1. one more time

what's the point of this useless flamebait thread ...

it's been argued to death and only highlights our differences rather than building the unity we need ...

give it a rest already ...

[rainy]

2. Why doesn't Kerry make a BIG point about that?

He says yes I would have still voted for IW but I would have done it differently. I would have rallies alies given inspections more time etc... He never really says the war was a mistake and a crime etc...

[unfrigginreal]

3. Glad that you brought this up again...

NOT

[Egnever]

4. Same sad excuse spewed out one more time

The vote was for war. Plain and simple bushes intentions were clear. The fact that he refused to sign anything that would remotely hold him accountable puts the lie to this bullshit excuse.

If it makes you feel better to buy into it fine. But its garbage.

Bush has to go but Kerry voted for war.

[rainy]

5. I think they were all scared about their political futures

they really didn't know if it would be a cakewalk, making them look bad if it was. Also, they really weren't sure if WMD would be found or be planted, again, making them look bad, week on defense etc... This is what it really boils down to. Byrd, Kucinich, Kennedy and a few other brave souls knew the resolution was wrong.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rainy]

7. Right On!

Robert Byrd, my hero.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Your post is not based on facts.

Kerry's consistency

Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

Pre-invasion 1/23/03:
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html



8/9/04 :
In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.

Then, in his most direct challenge to Bush about the war, Kerry listed four questions for the president, inquiring about prewar intelligence, postwar planning, the lack of efforts to bring other nations into the war as allies, and why Americans were misled about the war.

And unlike Bush, who never mentioned Kerry by name during his New Hampshire campaign stop, the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

''There are four not-hypothetical questions -- like the president's -- (but) real questions that matter to Americans, and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," Kerry said.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2js

[Egnever]

10. You post is based on crap!

"I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction"

Yet today knowing that there were no WMD he would vote the same way for what?

Sory kerry voted for war and he has been all over the map ever since trying to explain that vote away.

Kerry is crap but bush has to go!

[AP]

12. Let's see Kerry's actual quote.

I don't want to read spin on a quote. I want the actual question and the quote.

And if you're going to say Kerry's all over the place, I'd like to see actual textual references.

It seems to me that the confusion about what Kerry says is created by the media and Kerry detractors and not by Kerry.

[Egnever]

14. Arent those actual quotes in feans post?

:shrug:

"I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction"

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."


Which is it john?

[AP]

15. Are you or are you not making an argument?

I just want to see what you're founding it upon.

[Egnever]

17. Sory I edited

qoutes now included above.

Feel free to search the forums for my handle my argument is all over the place on here the last few days.

[AP]

18. Context please.

An out of context quote with no link isn't very helpful.

Everyone supports their arguments with links and quotes. It's not hard.

[Egnever]

19. Read feans post above for christs sake the links are included

WTF?

[AP]

22. What's in that quote doesn't support your argument.

In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have
voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the
decision to invade rested with the president.

It just seems to me that if you have an argument to make about Kerry, you could support it with specific textual (and contextualized) references.

[Egnever]

24. It doesnt?

lets try it again for the slow people in the class.

Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction"

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent"

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

We now know that neither of these conditions was met yet when asked
'My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. ''The American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."
.....

Kerry's answer is
8/9/04

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

http://tinyurl.com/3k2js

So he has now reversed his position from voting on IWR for one reason and one reason only WMD and only supporting it if Iraq was indeed an imminent threat.

To a position that its the right authority for the president to have.

Despite the fact that the constitution provides the conditions that need to be met for the country to go to war Kerry seems to say here he thinks it should be all in the presidents hand.

Reminds me of bushes fiasco with it being all about WMD then WMD programs then Husein was an evil man.

Keep squirming john you clearly have a lot of people on this board talked into thinking what you did was right.

[AP]

27. You left out the first sentence from Kerry's last quote

which was "distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action."
I think that's the context that's important.

We all know (even the slow ones too, I hope, by now) that the threat of force was the biggest reason Hussein was complying with inspections.

So, the IWR authority was the way to force compliance with the inspections (and based on the intelligence at the time, which is a separate matter from what we've actually found) it looks like Kerry still agrees with his earlier self that the IWR was an important tool to force compliance with inspections.

What he has never liked is and was Bush's execution of the war.

What's so hard to understand about that?

And why not quote the first part of that last quote? And why not give us the context that explains what that first part of the quote meant?

[Egnever]

28. We will have to agree to disagree

First off I hope it is clear to even the slow ones by now that Saddam had already complied.

There were no WMD none. There was no need for inspectors.

And once again Bushes refusal to sign anything that held him remotely responsible for his actions was a clear telegraphing of what this resolution actually was.

Once the knowledge is out there that none of the criteria Kerry laid out himself in his statement before the original vote was met. There is absolutely no reason for inspectors to be sent in, so a vote for the same resolution knowing what we know now is nothing more than a vote for war with no justification whatsoever.

Revisionist history is grand but it doesn't take away the truth that there was never any reason to invade nor authorize the authority to invade in the first place.

Kerry may or may not have invaded anyway were he in bushes place. We will never know. Strategically it was a good decision to ensure Americas continued world dominance. However I don't personally think our world dominance is justification for the killing of thousands of innocents.

Kerry has made excuses for it ever since he made the vote. The latest one seems to be what you are holding onto that we needed the threat of
force in order for Saddam to comply,

Saddam already had complied and we now know that for a fact therefore the excuse that it was needed to force compliance is bullshit.

[AP]

29. "Revisionist history is grand"? You're criticizing Kerry

for not changing his opinion based on 20:20 hindsight? You're critizing him for not being a revisionist?

And once again, Kerry is saying that the execution of the invasion was wrong and bad. But the vote for the IWR was important because it was the threat of force which would make Hussein comply with inspections.

Is your argument that the UN and the US had no right to inspect Iraq? That's a different argument. Do you want to argue about Iraq's rights as a soveriegn nation not to be subject to UN inspections?

That sort of reluctance by the world to engage in liberal internationalism would probably be a huge gift to the right wing -- it would guarantee enough tyrannical former CIA-assisted despots acting as destabilizing hobgoblins around the world, and would ensure issues for fascists to run on from here through the next two centuries.

One more thing: if you think it would have been good politics to say BEFORE EVEN THE INSPECTORS FELT THEIR JOBS WERE FINISHED that we knew everything was cool in Iraq...we'll I'll call that 'relying on 20:20 hindsight." What was wrong with wanting the inspectors to finish their jobs?

[AP]

31. And one more thing: how can you say this?

"Kerry has made excuses for it ever since he made the vote. The latest one seems to be what you are holding onto that we needed the threat of force in order for Saddam to comply"

How can you say this when you've barely been able to make any kind of reasonable argument that he's even done this once. You're entitled to your opinions, but if you want to convince people to share your opinions, you're going to need to make a better argument, supported by facts.

[Egnever]

37. I am not trying to convince you of anything

This whole thread is a feeble attempt to try to convince me.

I know what went on through the whole thing. I have been paying atention.

I knew when the vote went down as did most of the people on this board that the whole WMD thing was a farce. AS YOU KNEW!

I just refuse to give kerry a pass on it now just because he is the Dem nominee.

I am not a with us or against us kind of person I subscribe to my own beliefs not the party line.

If the party chooses to stray too far from my beliefs I will feel no remorse whatsoever in leaving the party behind.

If you choose to buy into a bunch of crap because kerry is the nominee thats your perogative.

I wont.

By all means keep throwing up crap threads like this and I will keep calling them crap.

In closing I leave you with Kerry's hogwash.

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections."

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."


(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
SEN. KERRY: I didn’t base it on the nuclear, but the most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t

[AP]

42. I'm glad that you're omniscient. I'll still be voting for Kerry

because I believe that he dealt with an incredibly difficult political situation with incredible adroitness and level-headedness.

I just don't understand how people can say that Kerry was wrong with his vote and that they knew better than a senator who was receiving intelligence that he had no good reason to discount at the time he received it.

I also am glad that people who don't understand what Russert is doing when he asks the question "were you duped" are not managing campaigns and running for office.

Can you show me the American politician who has won an election saying and doing the things you want Kerry to say and do.

[Egnever]

46. I will be voting for Kerry also

but it wont be because he is telling the truth about IWR with this revisionist bullshit he is trying to spew at me.

It will be because bush is just that bad. That I will give my vote to this lying sack.

"I just don't understand how people can say that Kerry was wrong with his vote and that they knew better than a senator who was receiving intelligence that he had no good reason to discount at the time he received it."

The intelligence he was receiving was filter through a white house that he had no reason to trust whatsoever. Not to mention much of the intelligence that was put forward was already debunked at the time.

You don't understand because you don't want to believe that you are left with a choice of two bads this election. It is easier for you to live in denial and pretend Kerry is some great thinker than it is to see him for the scheming politician he truly is.

Because saying it might not help get him elected. I should swallow the bullshit line and repeat it as if it were true?

Sorry not going to happen . 1000's of Innocent people have died because of this vote He will never be forgiven for this crap by me until he admits it was a mistake. He only pisses me off more by trying to justify it. as do you and your cheerleader ilk.

It is the refusal to question our leaders that you display that has gotten us to the sorry state we are currently in.

[AP]

51. If you were a senator...

...and you got intelligence, and you said that you simply chose not to believe it just because, you would have no political future. Especially if there were a subsequent attack. And you can bet that Kerry would have been made to pay for doing that.

He was right to vote the way he did and then to ask now for an investigation into the intelligence. There really was no other move that made sense.

If 1000 innocent people died from Kerry making that choice, then millions more could have died from him making another choice that would have given Bush four more years. And the idea that Kerry is to blame for Bush's actions as commander in chief plays into Bush's favorite strategy: that the buck stops somewhere else. And this is the point Kerry is making with the quote above which you're trying to hand him with.

[Egnever]

56. Once again

There was plenty of information allready out there debunking this "inteligence" before the vote.

It has nothing to do with me chosing not to believe it it was allready debunked. I chose to believe the truth instead of what was politicaly expedient at the time.

you aparently seem to think it is ok that politicians do the politically expedient thing instead of what is right.

I don't.

[AP]

73. What evidence did you know that Kerry didn't know?

Or that Kerry knew and ignored?

And compare that to the classified information Kerry was given.

[Egnever]

75. That the niger story was phony for one

that the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons. That the sanctions Iraq was under prohibited any reasonable oportunity for Saddam to provide decent medical treatment for his people forget about building stockpiles of WMD.

The list goes on and on.

You were here at the time AP dont try to pretend you didnt know it was all a sham.

[AP]

77. Edwards said he didn't believe that either and didn't base his decision on

that intelligence. I don't know if Kerry feels the same way.

Yes I was HERE at that time. I wasn't in the intelligence meetings and I don't have clearance for receiving that kind of information. But I do believe Edwards and Kerry and Clinton who have all said that there was intelligence which justified taking Hussein seriously. And I don't trust the media which seemed to be luring Democrats into criticizing Bush based on obviously bad intelligence like the uranium story. I always suspected (and you can search the archives) that that was a set-up and that if the Democrats bit, you could be sure that all the good intelligence would subsequently be leaked and Bush would be running his reelection campaign basically on the argument, "can you believe Kerry voted agains the IWR after receiving THIS {insert supported, good, intelligence}?"

So, does this list that goes on and on...is it based on stories that you heard on ABCNBCSNNCBS? Or do you have spies out there in the field feeding you information that we don't know about?

[Egnever]

78. so you base your decision on the possibility of a gotcha?

that never materialized?

The information is based on stories posted here at the time from a variety of news sources.

But thanks for the smart ass answer.

I assume by your reply above that you base your belief that kerry was right in his vote because there was a possibility that even though almost everything bush put forward as evidence( Remote control planes for instance remember that farce? ) was debunked, it was all a set up to get the dems?

God forbid we look bad doing what was right.

[AP]

80. Your welcome. Why is my opinon less valid than yours?

How do you know your opinoin is based on ALL the evidence? Do you think Kerry and Edwards and Clinton are all lying when they say there is classified information the public does not know which they couldn't ignore?

[Egnever]

81. Link that please

I would love to see that.

I am not asking that they ignore evidence presented to them. The whole point of this thread is that there was absolutely no good reason to vote for the IWR. And there is even less reason now.

And saying that people that dissagree with that vote are somehow delusional or need to be set straight is preposterous at best, and downright ignorant at worst.

The vote was wrong, It was down for political expediency to get it off the table in time for the elections, and people died because of it.

Wiggle as much as you want but there is no way in hell you will ever justify it effectively.

[AP]

83. Link what?

And I'm not wiggling. My impression is that you desperately want to fit the situation inot the way you want to interpret it that you won't listen to what Kerry is saying about it. And the fact is, Kerry voted the way he did because he wants to be president so that we have no more Iraqs.

[Egnever]

84. So he voted to kill 1000's of innocents

So he could be president.

My point exactly.

And despite the fact that the vote was wrong you will continue to defend it, because you want him to be president.

as long as we are clear on that I accept your position. I don't agree with it but I accept it.

[AP]

88. He voted the way a responsible Democrat should have voted in that....

...situation. You don't go second-guessing intelligence on a hunch because you don't like the president because you know that's a good way to ensure that president a second term in which many many lives will be destroyed.

You have a problem with that?

[Egnever]

90. again you perpetuate the lie

It was not a hunch credible sources had allready debunked much of the inteligence.

Sory Ted kenedy did the responsible thing. Kerry voted for his political career and yes I clearly have a problem with that.

[AP]

93. Then you're calling Kerry, Edwards and Clinton all liars.

I heard Edwards and Clinton say out of their own mouths that there was plenty of good classified information which justifed the IWR. I presume Kerry has said the same thing, although I haven't heard him say it first hand.

[Egnever]

98. link it

and your damn right I am calling them all liars.

Clinton is a proven liar do you deny it? Kerry also is a liar. Edwards I don't know about I will sufice it to say he is wrong.

The majority of politicians are liars you trying to put forward the idea that they aren't or just fishing for a way to try to make people mad at me?

[AP]

104. Clinton didn't telll the truth about Monica. But I don't think he lied

when he said what he said.

Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided.

The former US president told the BBC that UK intelligence on the activity of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was more "aggressive" than Washington's.

He added that the world was right to demand weapons inspections in 2002.

But he said war could have been avoided if the UN had passed a resolution threatening military action.

...

"The issue was not whether Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction but whether he was likely to give them away or have them stolen."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3893501.stm

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7313&st=0&#entry114543

http://www.therant.info/archive/000976.html



Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, another Democratic candidate, said: "The president and the White House staff are ultimately responsible for what the president says. The White House needs to provide a full accounting of how that misleading information found its way into the president's State of the Union Address and who was aware of it."

http://globalsecurity.com/global_security/bush_gives/bush_gives.htm

[Egnever]

109. Of course you dont

You drink the friggin coolaid.

after your last few responses its clear that this discusion is worhtless.

You are as bad as the freepers in your blind alegiance to these men.

I dont think clinton lied except about monica .... HAH!!!!!!

[AP]

112. Get a grip.

I made my argument, and all you have is to call me a freeper and tell me that I drink cool-aid.

Whatever.

[AP]

92. I wonder about the philosophical make-up of people who define themself

by this issue alone. Why do some people look at the politics of the last four years ONLY through the lens of the Iraq War? That is exactly what Republicans want.

Why don't people understand that politics is chess. That there are many things going on at once and that politics is about something much much bigger than the IWR, or even Iraq. It's about a transfer of power and wealth to a few people at the very top of the ladder. Getting people to see the world through the lens of the Iraq war is the way Republicans will ensure they get elected so that they can continue to transfer that wealth and power to the top. Many many people will die to achieve that wealth transfer. More than the 1000 in Iraq if Bush carries on. Many -- billions internationally -- won't die, but their lives and the lives of their children will be ruined because of lost opportunity -- opportunity that is lost to ensure guaranteed wealth without any risk to a very few people who are already immensely wealthy.

Kerry and Edwards's committment to addressing those bigger issues is ASTOUNDING. They have 1000 times the conviction that Gore had. These two guys are heroes. And they've been brilliant strategists. They have a coherent political-philosophical view of the world which addresses the BIG PICTURE -- the chess match. It's remarkable to me that people don't understand how their version of liberal internationalism, in Iraq and elsewhere, is a coherent, logical piece to that bigger picture, which isn't inconsistent and which is progressive and is also good politics.

To want to make that one piece the entire puzzle -- the entire picture -- just baffles me. It's even more remarkable because every lesson you need to learn about why they're doing the right thing was proven to have worked with FDR.

Why don't you see the bigger picture? Why don't you see how their position on Iraq is consistent with their political philosophy which has to do with confronting the fascism of the right wing and dismantling with a progressive liberalism at home and internationally?

[Egnever]

95. This issue alone?

Hardly.

It just hapens to be the topic this thread is about. There are plenty of other areas that I disagree with kerry.

Unlike you I dont see kerry as some kind of hero. In fact I see him as an oportunist willing to do whatever it takes to win this game of chess you go on about like the good little meme repeating soldier they want you to be.

My intention on this thread is not to point out all of Kerry's questionable ideals. I do want him to beat bush. Not because I think he will be good for the country but because I know damn well bush wont.

I entered this thread purely because I strongly dissagree with his original vote and every nuanced excuse he has made for it since.

When I heard him say he would do the same thing now knowing what we know( much of wich was known at the time had he taken the time to look instead of playing chess) I thought my head would explode.

All it does is add legitimacy to Bush's horrible war, and does nothing to advance Kerry's standing in anyones eyes other than with fanboys such as yourself, willing to accept anything he says and call it genius.

I am seeing the bigger picture thats the problem. I am seing past the removal of bush and looking past to what we get with a Kerry presidency. I see a man that based on his record at this point will be willing to sign onto any despicable bill because he is going to have to run again in four years and he likes playing chess.

That may be acceptable to you just to get a D in the white house. But it is not acceptable to me.

Time will tell what hapens when he gets in there but at this point based on his statements and actions so far I forsee nothing but bitter disappointment in the future and being forced to vote against the him in the next presidential election.

This makes me want to weep. I beleive in democratic ideals in tolerance for others cultures in raising up the little guy in order to benefit everyone. Instead of a champion willing to fight for these things I am being forced to vote for someone with a track record of playing chess instead.

[AP]

103. You would lose an election running like that.

Nobody is every going to win an election in America behaving so stupidly (and it would have been stupid to not trust the intelligence you were getting based on a hunch).

Tell me what policy achievements losers have ever made?

If you want to change the world you have to win every once and a while.

Why don't you think that Kerry wants to win in order to change the world? Why would he even bother running against Bush?

[Egnever]

105. WTF with you and this based on a hunch BS

This was not based on a hunch. All of the inteligence put forward by this administration was debunked by a variety of news sources before the vote was cast. People were sitting outside kerry's office begging him to look at it and not only did he refuse to even let them into his office he refused to even listen.

Bush is a huge loser and I would say he has made a friggin ton of policy decisions.

He wants to win because it is what he has been aiming for his whole life I doubt if he gives two shits who his oponent is.

How lucky for him he hapens to be runing against the biggest fuck up on the planet. He wouldnt stand a chance in hell otherwise.

In poll after poll when people are asked are you voting for kerry or against bush overwhelmingly the answer is against bush.

Why do you insist on repeating your hunch line when you know damn well this stuff was allready debunked before the vote?

Why perpetuate the lies from Kerry and Bush?

all I can say is kerry better friggin walk on water once he gets in office or you play it safe no matter the cost dems will be in for a rude awakening come 08 when he is thrown out on his ass.

[AP]

106. Why do you think the Repubs/media put forward ALL the evidence?

And who put the evidence forward? CNN, NBC. CBS. When have you trusted them to behave as journalists.

It is so obvious to me that they were putting forward only the bad evidence in order to bait Dems into fighting the electioin ONLY on the issue of the war (and perhaps to encourage Dems to nominate Dean). If that had happened, I guarantee you that we would have heard all the good evidence.

Since Dean didn't get nominated, the remaining strategy is to divide the left with arguments like yours. Which is basically, "the evidence we know about was the only evidence. Can you believe Kerry voted for the IWR based on that evidence."

Kerry, Edwards and Clinton have said for MONTHS (not just recently) that there was good evidence, and if that evidence was wrong, there needs to be an investigation.

Do you think that the evidence that looked good to them (not the Niger shit, but good evidence) wouldn't also look good to voters once it was dropped during the election?

Bush and the RW has been doing the groundwork for this for years, and part of the work has most likely been to create good and bad looking evidence in order to manipulate public opinion according to their political needs.

This is so obvious to me.

[Egnever]

107. LOL riiiiight

Clinton was in on the rape of Iraq go back and look how he manipulated the sanctions. I wouldnt expect him to say anything less.

Your argument is bullshit its long past time any credible evidence would have come out by now just to save face for bush.

You seem to be willing top justify this vote on some argument of imaginary inteligence..

Try selling your crap to senator byrd cause I aint buying it.

[AP]

111. And you base your opinion on your omniscience.

Which makes me laugh.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. Bravo Egnever

I agree with you and yet I am working to defeat bush. However that doesn't mean I am happy with the answer Kerry has given on the IWR.

[Egnever]

101. Thanks

Bush definately has to go og that there is no doubt.

And thanks for your work to oust him. I find it very difficult to speak in support of kerry yet amazingly simple to speak out against bush. The fact that you can work for kerry feeling as you do is wonderfull.

[no name no slogan]

102. Here, here

Very good arguments Egnever. You speak for many of us who knew, from past experience, that the CIA is NOT as trustworthy as the government has us believe, and that there was PLENTY of evidence, pre-IWR, that Iraq DID NOT have WMDs and did NOT pose a threat to ANYBODY.

It seems the current excuse-du-jour about the wrongness of the IWR vote is that the Senators were fed "bad intelligence" by the CIA, which "misled" them into voting for the IWR.

Keep in mind this is the same CIA which COMPLETELY missed the Berlin Wall crumbling, despite the fact that people on the streets of both East AND West Berlin at the time knew it would come down within years, if not months. They also COMPLETELY missed the Soviet Coup of 1991 that deposed Gorbachev and led to the breakup of the USSR-- although intelligence agencies of other nations saw it coming.

This is the SAME CIA who repeatedly overstated the economic power of the USSR, despite evidence in plain sight that showed they had a third-world economy.

Not to mention the credible reporting and information available that showed that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Iraq to have a WMD program and to pose a threat to ANYONE, let alone the largest military power on earth.

Many people around the world KNEW that the IWR was just an excuse for continued American imperialism abroad. Many brave Senators and Representatives saw through the Bush lies, and voted appropriately. Many more believed Bush and his cronies, and voted for a war they deemed necessary to eliminate an "imminent threat".

However, there were some who probably knew that Iraq was not a threat, yet voted FOR the IWR because they didn't want to look "weak", and do any damage to their future political "aspirations".

It is this group who deserves not only our scrutiny, but our mistrust, too.

[AP]

43. I'm glad that you're omniscient. I'll still be voting for Kerry

because I believe that he dealt with an incredibly difficult political situation with incredible adroitness and level-headedness.

I just don't understand how people can say that Kerry was wrong with his vote and that they knew better than a senator who was receiving intelligence that he had no good reason to discount at the time he received it.

I also am glad that people who don't understand what Russert is doing when he asks the question "were you duped" are not managing campaigns and running for office.

Can you show me the American politician who has won an election saying and doing the things you want Kerry to say and do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. But we don't have to let dishonest and divisive rhetoric go unanswered.

Kerry has made excuses for it ever since he made the vote.

An absolute lie.

[Egnever]

33. Divisive perhaps

it may not fit neatly into your little kerry is the best thing since sliced bread meme.

But hardly dishonest.

Dishonest is kerry saying he would make the same vote today because he believes it is the right authority for a president to have.

When in the past he said the only reason was to disarm Iraq of WMD.

Thats dishonesty.

Its a feeble attempt to justify a vote that in his own hindsight he knows was wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. I notice you didn't attempt to claim your original statement was true.

You acknowledged that it was divisive, but you did not attempt to show any facts that supported your false claim.

[Egnever]

38. I think you are runing in circles

you provided all the quotes needed to show him making excuses.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Besides the dishonesty of your attacks, your insistence on targeting Kerry

instead of Bush, really makes me doubt your judgement.

[Egnever]

49. If you and your pals would stop making up excuses

for an indefensible vote.

My tune would change quickly.

As long as you continue to try to twist it into something good I will continue to shout from the rooftops that it is all bullshit.

Bush is a fucking criminal and kerry helped him!

If he wants to keep justifying it I will continue to call him and you on it.

[AP]

52. Go ahead. But an uninformed, naive shout from the rooftop

is still an uninformed, naive shout from the rooftop.

[Egnever]

54. ROFL

I will give you props on the insults you are doing a fine job on that.

but theres nothing uninformed about anything I have said. Quite the oposite.

You have yet to show me anything besides touchy feely he cant win if he said the truth crap. wich does not equal informed it equals delusional and a refusal to face reality.

[kiahzero]

63. Exactly

You've pretty much summed up the situation - some are so upset that Kerry hasn't accepted their reasoning, even though the reason why is that their reasoning is flat out wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. I don't agree with it at all.

I think Kerry was wrong. But wrong or right, Kerry has been consistent. He hasn't tried to 'make excuses' for anything. He has simply consistently held the same position and you disagree with him, and apparently are even more angry with Kerry than you are with Bush. I think that is misdirected anger.

[Xipe Totec]

94. I Do Not Think Kerry's Statements Are Necessarily In Conflict

1).- In the past Kerry said the only reason was to disarm Iraq of WMD.

2).- Kerry said he would make the same vote today because he believes it is the right authority for a president to have.

I too followed the story at the time. I was aware that the tubes information, the yellow cake information, and other nuclear related intelligence was cooked. I was deeply suspicious of Bush, especially since I predicted (to my family and circle of friends) that if Bush got elected we might invade Iraq.

I was not as certain regarding the chemical and biological weapons since Saddam had a demonstrated capability in those areas and had been caught playing shell games with the UN weapons inspectors in the past.

I did not trust Bush as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat but I did trust Colin Powell. When Powell went before the UN and made the case based on all of the collected intelligence information put together, including the intercepted communications allegedly emanating from Iraq, my certainty was shaken. I too believed that perhaps Saddam was pulling a wool over our eyes again. Maybe he did have WMD.

I also believed that in order for Saddam to take the threat of US invasion seriously, we had to all speak with one voice and send an unequivocal message: "Open up, or we'll tear you another one".

When we had troops poised on the border ready to go in and Saddam said: "Awright, already, come in and check for yourselves" I thought we had won. Saddam had opened up, we had not spilled a single drop of blood, Bush was going to get a HUGE victory without firing a single shot. I thought it was a masterful stroke of brinkmanship.

Then the imbecile went ahead and invaded proving that, as low as my assessment of this retard's mental faculties was, I had overestimated him. The son of a bitch snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. He took the only possible move guaranteed to piss off the planet and destroy our credibility.

So now the hypothetical question is: Given that we now know there were no WMD in Iraq, should Kerry reassess the vote, admit he was duped by the Bush white house, and recant his vote?

The assertion is that it is dishonest for Kerry to now say he would vote to give the president the authority, because in the past he said the ONLY reason to grant the authority was the potential existence of WMD.

WMD was the only reason for granting the authority before, because is was the necessary and sufficient reason for granting the authority. Therefore no other reason needed to be considered or contemplated at that time. Therefore, no other reason was in fact explored. Only now that the WMD justification has been invalidated can we even discuss whether there may have been other reasons why the President of The United States (any President, not just George Bush) should have this authority. Kerry has now explored this question, reviewed the wording of the resolution, and decided that he would still vote for the authority. That is not dishonest, that is thoughtful and reflective. It is unfair to simultaneously hold Kerry accountable for a justification he gave when the potential for WMD was real and a different statement he made once the truth about WMD was uncovered. The man is smart, but he is not clairvoyant

I know that would not be the choice you would make and, frankly, I admire, support, and respect your reasoning on this issue. I think it is principled and closely tracks my view point on the Iraq war. If you were running for President I would probably vote for you based on this issue. However, I disagree with your assessment of Kerry's position as necessarily dishonest. I am willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on this issue and I provisionally accept his explanation and justification. I am not ready to call Kerry a liar based on this one issue.

[Egnever]

97. Very reasonable

I don't agree with your conclusions as to why Kerry would vote for it again or perhaps I don't agree with Kerry's.

I am also willing to give him a pass and vote for him anyway even though I disagree with his reasoning in its entirety.

The only reason I am in this thread really is the attitude of the author who is conveniently missing that basically wants to shut anyone up that disagrees with the Kerry meme that the vote was right.

I also think Kerry is smart which is why this whole thing galls me so much. Clearly from his beginning speech till now he is wording his answers in order to give himself the most wriggle room he can. Smart indeed but also glaringly dishonest and cowardly in my view.

As i have said repeatedly in this thread. I do want Kerry to win. The alternative scares the hell out of me. But I will be damned if
I will be told that his vote was anything other than political expediency at a time when what we needed was strength and honesty.

Thank you for your reply

[kiahzero]

36. Just plain wrong

There were no WMD none. There was no need for inspectors.

No, there was a need for inspectors - so that we could verify that there were no WMDs.

[Egnever]

39. we needed that verification for what?

just because we were being told by the bush junta that there were?

[kiahzero]

41. Um, no.

The inspectors shouldn't have left in 1998; the world community needed to verify that Iraq hadn't gone back to creating WMDs.

[Egnever]

44. I agree you are just plain wrong

Timeline of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq
Key events in efforts to ensure Iraq does not have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons:

Aug. 1: In a letter to Annan, Iraq invites Blix to Iraq for technical discussions on remaining disarmament issues.

Aug. 6: Annan writes to Iraqis pointing out that what they are proposing is at odds with U.N. resolutions and asks that Iraq accept inspections.

Sept. 12: President Bush tells the United Nations it must rid the world of Saddam's biological, chemical and nuclear arsenals, or stand aside as the United States acts.

Sept. 16: Iraq unconditionally accepts the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-17-iraq-inspections_x.htm

IWR vote wasnt till after kerry said this crap a month later.


Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

Kerry

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction"

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

[kiahzero]

45. The threat was needed to make the inspections work

http://www.gaiaguys.net/WARONIRAQ.htm

Read the interview between Scott Ritter and William Pitt - Ritter points out how Saddam tended to jerk around the inspectors until he's backed into a corner.

[Egnever]

47. LOL I love how the story keeps changing.

now its not to get them back in its to make sure they actually worked.

Of course Sadam dicked em arround they WERE PROVEN to be working for the
usa inteligence agencies trying to infitrate Sadams government.

Pitt is a cheerleader just like you willing to keep making excuses for kerry no matter what the reality of the situation is.

[kiahzero]

57. Personal attack

Or am I not supposed to feel attacked when you call me a "cheerleader?"

Did you even read the interview with Ritter? He was PISSED that the CIA was using the inspections to spy on Iraq.

As for your claim that the story changed, perhaps you might like to reread my posts, repeated here for your convenience:

Post 34: He voted for IWR to give the inspections an underlying threat of force - the fact that there were no weapons did not change the fact that, for the inspections to work, there needed to be such an underlying threat.

So, yes, knowing today that there were no WMDs, he would have still voted for the threat of force, because it was necessary. But if he were President, we wouldn't have gone to war, because we would have discovered that there were no WMDs.

Post 36: "There were no WMD none. There was no need for inspectors."

No, there was a need for inspectors - so that we could verify that there were no WMDs.

Post 41: The inspectors shouldn't have left in 1998; the world community needed to verify that Iraq hadn't gone back to creating WMDs.

[Egnever]

58. WAAAA

whats your point?

[kiahzero]

61. That you're wrong on the facts

And that your only rebuttal is an ad hominem attack, further indicating the weakness of your argument.

[Egnever]

62. Ok ill bite

wrong on what facts?

that kerry voted for political expediency and that there was no need for an authorization of force?

[kiahzero]

64. That the "story" has changed, for one

That there was no need for an authorization, for another.

[Egnever]

65. ok going back through your posts

I agree your story has not changed. I apologize I was responding to multiple people and I confused your position with someone elses.

Back to the authorization.

Please explain to me how it was necessary? given the fact that Iraq had already agreed to unfettered inspections.

[kiahzero]

66. As I said before

Just because Iraq agreed didn't mean that they would follow through. I wish you would read the Ritter interview - he was one of the voices against the War in Iraq, and probably one of the best equipped to speak on it, since he had been chief inspector for the UN.

[Egnever]

68. What did they have to hide?

You seem to be looking at this from the position that they had something to hide.

Step back a second and think about it from Sadams point of view.

He knew Bush wanted him dead this is why he agreed to unfetered access in the first place. Add to that the fact that he knew he was already disarmed and it was a no lose situation for him He could allow the inspectors in and make bush look like an idiot for beating the war drum.

Had kerry not cast that vote along with all the others the inspectors would have found nothing. Instead because of the election coming up he caved and gave in to bushes impatience in an attempt to save dem seats in congress.

This had the effect of allowing bush to dismiss anything the inspectors said regarding the WMD and they were making lots of noise allready that there was no evidence of any nuclear programs.

sory there was no need for force. Sadam was aware of the Gravity of the situation and had nothing to hide.

Ritter can say whatever he wants about Sadams cooperation the fact is the inspectors were partialy responsible for him puting up bariers by snooping for the CIA and oversteping thier boundaries.

The only reason for there to be a need for force is if Sadam actually had something to hide. HE DID NOT.

So sorry I dont buy into your theory.

[kiahzero]

70. You don't "buy into my theory" because you're not willing to read

You're blaming Ritter for the CIA spying on Saddam, when he spoke out against that action, for instance.

PITT: How was UNSCOM run into the ground? Wasn't it infiltrated by the CIA?



RITTER: I don't know if I'd call it infiltration. There was certainly CIA involvement, a lot of which was legitimate. But the question becomes: who's calling the shots? It's one thing to build a team that incorporates CIA elements, which i did all the time - every one of my teams had CIA members in it. I needed them. They're good. They provided tremendous capabilities required if you're going to take on the Iraqis in the game I was playing.

As long as all of the activities inside Iraq are consistent with the U.N. mandate - looking for weapons of mass destruction - you don't have a problem. The second you start allowing inspections to be used to gather intelligence information unrelated to the mandate, you've discredited the entire inspection regime. Several programs - most importantly, a signals intelligence program I designed and ran from 1996 to 1998 were allowed to be taken over by the CIA for the sole purpose of spying on Saddam. This was wrong, and I said so on numerous occasions. The refusal to terminate that relationship was one of the main reasons I resigned in 1998.



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



RITTER: In August of that year a delegation went 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 U.S. 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 U.N., so a decision was made to bomb anyway. The bombing campaign had to coincide with inspection: the inspections were to be used as the trigger.

Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis.

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.

Directions were given that when the inspectors went in to Iraq that December, they were to make null and void the Sensitive Site modalities. This was done without coordinating with the Security Council. The only nation 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 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.

The inspection teams were withdrawn in direct violation of a promise to the other members of the Security Council: that inspectors would not be withdrawn without going through the Security Council to inform them and get their permission. The inspectors work for the Council. 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.

Read the interview if you want to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

[Egnever]

72. LOL Ritter is now the end all of the whole IWR?

sorry theres a lot more to that whole situation than this one interview with ritter.

How bout you go and read up on the sanctions Iraq was under and americas influence on those sanctions and abuse of them. Before you try to tell me a Ritter interview is the end all of the IWR situation.

How bout you go read all of blixes reports before the IWR vote went down.

Get the fuck off your horse

I am not blaming ritter for anything I am pointing out that the fact that the CIA was meddling with the previous inspections and that Sadam started screwing with them because of it. Do you seriously expect him to do less?

The portion of the interview you posted only goes to confirm exactly what I am saying.

Add to that the fact that there are NO WMD and no matter what the fuck ritter says in the rest oif the article there were none at the time of the IWR either.

We used the WMD issue for years to manipulate the proceeds from Iraqi oil and the sanctions to try to force Sadam from power by abusive objections to legitimate medical and agriculteral equipment.

Eductate yourself.

[kiahzero]

74. I have educated myself

I'm well aware of the effect of sanctions on Iraq - one of my few beefs with the Clinton Administration was his handling of the issue.

The point of you reading said interview was that Ritter answers your questions far more articulately than I can, seeing as he is far qualified to speak on the matter than either you or I.

The fact that there were no WMDs didn't change the need for inspections to verify that there were no WMDs. It's pretty simple - we needed to know that there were none, and the only way to do that was inspections.

On Edit: Think of it this way - testing for an illness. Just because you might, in fact, be healthy, doesn't change the fact that you need to do the test to find out that you're healthy.

[Egnever]

76. clearly you haven't

THERE WERE INSPECTIONS!!!!


Sept. 16: Iraq unconditionally accepts the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-17-iraq-insp...

IWR vote wasnt till after kerry said this crap a month later.


Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

Kerry

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction"

[kiahzero]

82. I was responding to your idea

that inspections weren't needed because it turned out that there were no WMDs. I'm well aware that there were inspections.

[Egnever]

85. And that leaves us with the point that Kerry's IWR vote

Was based on political expediency and had nothing to do with a need for inspections.

Or anything to do with the notion that the threat of force was necessary in order to get inspectors back in at the time of the IWR.

The only reason inspections were necessary was because the bush junta hyped the evidence saying they were needed not because of anything approaching reality on the ground as has been proven conclusively since.

[kiahzero]

86. Now who's going in circles

My argument is simple: The inspections were necessary, and a threat of force was necessary for the inspections to work.

I honestly don't understand why you are having such a hard time keeping track of it.

[Egnever]

87. and mine is

the inspections weren't necessary there were no WMD.

And that the inspections were already going forward without an authorization of the use of force.

Just because you think I might have a gun in my house and you know I don't like you it does not mean searching my house is necessary. especially if you cant point to one shred of proof that I have that gun.

[kiahzero]

91. Right

And I addressed those positions already, which is what brought us here. Obviously there's no point in discussing this anymore, because we're just going to end up repeating ourselves.

Unless there's something you haven't said that you think needs saying, I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Your post is dishonest.

The reason you need to selectively quote is that is the only way you can misrepresent. But since the full context is available to everyone, your deception should be less than effective.

[Egnever]

25. Really?

please feel free to point out to me what part is dishonest.

You provided these qoutes not me.

Did kerry or did he not say he was voting specifically to disarm IRAQ of wmd?

Did kerry or did he not say that he would now vote because he thought it was right for the president to have the athority?

Your quotes man not mine.

I just dont agree with your spin that it is some how consistent.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. I'm encouraging people to read the context for themselves

and make up their own minds.

And thank you for re-affirming the fact that the only way you can misrepresent is by extracting, short, selected phrases out of the actual comments.

[kiahzero]

34. Way to demonstrate your skills of reading comprehension

He voted for IWR to give the inspections an underlying threat of force - the fact that there were no weapons did not change the fact that, for the inspections to work, there needed to be such an underlying threat.

So, yes, knowing today that there were no WMDs, he would have still voted for the threat of force, because it was necessary. But if he were President, we wouldn't have gone to war, because we would have discovered that there were no WMDs.

[AP]

9. I couldn't disagree more. I find Kerry's Iraq position perfectly

logical and clear (and I think Jackpine has summed up the whole issue very succinctly and accurately).

I believe it's the stupid mantra "flip flopper" which is perpetrated by the media (as well as the unhelpful phrase "kerrybots' which is perpetrated by DU Kerry detractors) subsequently superimposed on an otherwise logical and consistent statement which makes it appear illogical when it's not.

The Iraq War was designed to damn democrats if they did and damn them if they didn't. I think Kerry addressed it the most logical, patriotic, moral, and sensible way possible. I am amazed (but not suprised) that some people still want to play it as wedge issue when it's so obvious that Kerry has this issue down cold.

[kiahzero]

67. I think Josh Marshall says it best:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php#003276

I think I've demurred from discussing or rather defending Kerry's position on this issue because I have an element of bias, since it is also my position. But as Kevin notes, whether or not you agree with that position, it is really not difficult to understand so long as you are not being willfully obtuse.

[AP]

89. "Wilfully obtuse." Describes a lot of what's going on in this thread.

[quinnox]

11. Kerry is not going to be a perfect candidate

No one is. And sometimes politicians make votes based on politics. Kerry has to project a militaristic image in order to win the election against Bush, hence he said he would still have voted for the resolution. If he had said no, it would have been more fodder for GOP to try and paint Kerry as a wimp which is part of their strategy. No sense into playing into GOP hands. The way I look at it is Kerry's vote was disappointing but it wasn't pivotal, in other words if he had voted the other way it wouldn't have made any difference ultimately (there was large majority who voted for resolution) except it might have hurt Kerry's chances in this election.

Bottom line I have confidence Kerry will not pursue same brute force first, no diplomacy, stupid strategy of Bush in foreign policy.

[Egnever]

13. Now thats a position I can live with

I agree with that almost 100%

I dont have confidence in Kerry only because he seems willing to say anything if he thinks it is good for him politicaly. So I dont feel I can believe anything he says.

However I know Bush is a WMD all by himself so kerry gets a pass this election from me even though I have no confidence in him whatsoever.

Nothing makes me see red faster than people making excuses for that vote that has allowed so many innocents to be killed.

That vote was wrong then is wrong now and no amount of attempts to justify it will ever make it right.

Kerry would be best served from my perspective if he never mentioned it again. Cause its clear as day that he will never admit it was a mistake.

I dont even really blame him for not admiting it was a mistake because it would show weakness and he cant afford it. But it still pisses me off to no end when he tries to defend it.

[quinnox]

16. I understand that point of view

[Wheelie_Alex]

53. That vote and the President's actions afterward...

got my daughter wounded by a grenade in Iraq. :grr:

[Egnever]

59. Exactly!

and i am pissed as hell about it.

And these people trying to twist it into something honerable that kerry should be proud of irritates me to no end.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. WAR IS BAD , MMMMKAY?

Just a reminder to those who get lost parsing the rhetoric.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Yeah, that's the kind of complex understanding of issues we need in a Prez

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. Really?

As a veteran, I had not realized that until you pointed it out. How will I ever be able to thank you for enlightening me?

:eyes:

[Wheelie_Alex]

48. The Semantics of it matter very little...

to most of the swing voters, which are the ones who are going to make or break the election for John Kerry. We are here everyday discussing this stuff and understand the subtleties of what he did.

To most of the people who do not make politics a part of their lives, it was a vote to go to war. Everytime he tries to explain himself, all these people hear is, "This is what I said, but this is what I meant." Not good.

Sorry, but I saw Kerry's vote as a way to position himself with an out. He can go either way on this vote. If the tide was swinging in favor of the war he would just say he was in favor of the war and voted to give the President the authority. Since the pendulum is swinging the other way, he is saying what he is saying.

He may bullshit others, but he is not so stupid that he did not see that Bush was chomping at the bit to go to war. Every single person that voted to give him the authority KNEW what was going to happen.

Now everyone is just clicking the heels of their ruby red shoes together and wishing.

Some fucking clarity would be nice, not "this is what I said, but this is what I meant!" Is that too much to ask for?

[Egnever]

50. thank you!

well said and spot on!

[Radical Activist]

60. Maybe you just don't get it

The IWR gave more open ended authority to wage war than should ever be given to any president at any time. The IWR resolution doesn't just authorize war in Iraq, it authorized war in Iran should Bush choose to go that direction. It gave Bush the power to start WW3 if he so chooses, and he won't have to go back to Congress to do it. It violated the basic principles behind the Congressional War Power given to Congress by the Constitution, and wrote a blank check to an incompetent war monger.

Someone with Kerry's background in Vietnam should have had enough sense to question and second guess the lies of a President with a proven track record of dishonesty. The vote shows he was either too ambitious to show courage, or too foolish to make the right decision.

Voting for the IWR was an inexcusable lapse in judgment and courage that I will never accept of forgive. I will vote for Kerry because that's who I'm stuck with but don't serve me shit and call it pudding.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. That is absolutely not true.

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.
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

[latebloomer]

71. Sorry, still can't buy it

Giving authority to a criminal madman to use "a full range of options, including war" was inexcusable. Pretending he didn't know that Bush was hell-bent for war and was totally uninterested in diplomatic options was either incredibly stupid or pure self-serving politics. And John Kerry is not a stupid man.

Furthermore, there SHOULD be a precedent about Congress not ceding its power to declare war to ANY President, Democrat or Republican.

I am voting for John Kerry because I feel I have no other choice. But I can't buy these attempts to excuse the inexcusable.

[Pastiche423]

79. Did you actually think you were going to change any minds

by repeating the same, tired excuse?

Nuancing the crap out of a crap excuse, still makes it crap.

How many non-political people will take the time and effort to vote on nuanced crap?

How many times have DUers stated on this board that too many Americans don't pay enough attention, or are too "stupid"?

For cripe's sake! At least come clean w/your own self. Kerry voted for the IWR, would still vote for it today and that is how the majority of non-political and "stupid" people will hear it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." - Albert Einstein

[Cheswick2.0]

96. IT's not that I don't get it..... I don't buy it

His answer that he would vote for the IWR again because "that is the kind of power a president should have", was horrible.
IMO he should have said "No, I would not have voted for it, I do not believe this president should have had that power".


My fear is that Kerry really means what he says, which says to me that he is not someone I want as President. Fortunatly for him he is not bush. But I am still hoping that he shows me some reason for me to have trust in him. Right now my fear is that he is going to govern exactly the way he has said he would and to me that is not exactly inspiring.

[Xipe Totec]

99. Can We PLEASE Stop Pulling The Scab Off?

Otherwise this wound is just not going to heal.

Can we just accept the fact that there are many DUers who are hurt and upset by Kerry's position on IWR, and that DESPITE this, they are still willing to vote for him?

Why do we HAVE to send them to room 101 in the Ministry of Love?

:shrug:

(edited for syntax, and emoticon)

[greenohio]

108. We are in the middle of an election here...

Did you hear that Kerry doesn't regret the vote to authorize junior to invade Iraq? Move on people. Get over it. It's done. Remember, we already had the convention.

[LimpingLib]

110. Where was Kerry when we gave Saddam the weapons?

I would vote for a "Sense of the Senate" resolution slamming Reagan for giving Saddam the weapons and Iranian troop positions.

I would vote to lift sanctions so 1 million more children wont starve to death or die of milaria due to inability to import civil infrastructure.

I would vote to fund what left of the Iraqi oposition (after we left them high an dry)plus arm them.

I would vote to use some of our $30 billion intelligence budget to put a bullet in Saddams head. (yea and lift the assasination ban which was nothing more than a cowardly attempt to save our leaders a little heartburn , and then create a system that punishes civilians for the sins of their leaders,and whats worse they are leaders we put into power)

I would not vote in any way to "threaten" war over a few little cans of gas.No wars no how, no way unless they are necessary.

I would vote to actualy enforce UN resolutions , in the chronological order they were adopted.


Anyway Kerry never said a word about us giving our guy Saddam the weapons so what background or credibility does he have in "threatening" war (?) , and Ill use his revised logic.