Kerry supported the war.

[durutti]

Am I the only one who remembers this fact?

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Nope. I remember! n/t

[notbush]

2. Me Too!!!!!!!

Many here have forgotten.
Oh Yeah, he's gonna get the french, and germans to send troops.?????

[radwriter0555]

25. Then you remember that BUSH, the PRESIDENT, LIED to acquire that support,

of course, RIGHT?

Support based on a bed of lies.

So who do YOU support? The LIAR, or the Billions who were lied TO?

[wuushew]

3. So what is your point?

All the candidates who were in a position to vote for war did so with the exception of Kucinich.

The media and perhaps the public at large is not willing to have a meaningful discussion on when, where or why this country uses its massive military fist to conduct foreign policy. That being the case why don't we focus on supporting the candidate who failings do not extend so noticeably into the domestic realm.

[still_one]

4. so what do you propose

vote against Kerry, because in reality it will be either Kerry or bush, and there are more issues than this screwed up war!

[deacon]

5. It's only half a fact, the other half as only as a last resort

kerry and congress were handed the same BS about iraq being an imminent threat as the public was.

Take into account this white house didn't even share the costs of what this war would be--they lied to everyone.

My God, it's just not that hard to understand his position. It isn't that deep or complex.

[thebobartist]

6. Yes, but

you'd hope that your candidate for President would know bullshit when he saw it.

[deacon]

7. Who really knew? Everyone was hit with an onslaught of 8+

months of warmongering.

This is hair splitting nonsense.

[thebobartist]

8. I'm not against Kerry,

but I think people should possibly acknowledge that he's not going to be EVERYTHING people want him to be. I mean, it's fully possible that he knew what was going on and had his own reasons for agreeing with it. The man's got his own mind; there's no need to warp what may have well been his own, "rational" decision into a mistake just to make it more palatable.

[deacon]

9. Of course it is possible, but it's speculation without taking into....

...consideration of what has unfolded since. The unraveling of powell, rumsfeld, cheney, rice, perle, wolfowitz and bush individually; and how and why they are unraveling removes a great deal of specualtion.

This is the most secretive and corrupt group ever to occupy th white house.

[greenman3610]

30. Everything?

uh....if you ever go into a marriage thinking you're
getting EVERYTHING you want...
look out.
Life is not that way. Wanting Everything is
what got people to vote for Nader....

[Guaranteed]

12. We all knew, for Christ's sake.

Look, I'm sick of harping on Kerry for his IWR. It's been nothing but that for months and months. I'm ready to let it go.

But people DO need to understand the reality of what happened, that he wussed out and let us all down. He's a very intelligent man, and he knew what was happening. We should stop making excuses for him, and move on.

[KG]

10. he still does

[Disturbed]

11. Does J. Kerry also support the Iragi Puppet Govt.?

Does he support the following?

Full Sovereignty?
"Throughout the spring, as hundreds died in the spiraling conflict, as Regime bosses applied their hardcore "anti-terrorist" tortures to innocent bystanders raked up in their occupation nets, as Regime mouthpieces prated endlessly of "liberation" and "sovereignty," Bush viceroy Paul Bremer was quietly signing a series of edicts that will give the United States effective control over the military, ministries -- and money -- of any Iraqi government, for years to come, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Bremer has placed U.S.-appointed "commissions" made up of Americans and local puppets throughout Iraqi government agencies; the ministers supposedly in charge weren't even told of the edicts. These boards "will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens," the Journal reports. Any new Iraqi government "will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials.


Earlier Bremer edicts laid the Iraqi economy wide open to ruthless exploitation by Bush-approved foreign "investors"; dominance of such key sectors as banking, communications -- and energy -- is already well advanced. The latest dictates aim to ensure that this organized looting goes on, no matter what kind of makeshift "interim government" the United Nations manage to piece together. Bush's plans to build a Saddamite fortress embassy in Baghdad and 14 permanent military bases around the country are designed to provide the knee-breaking "security" for these lucrative arrangements."



http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html


*It quite obvious that Iraq will never be granted real Democracy.

[Gore1FL]

13. When did he say that?

I remember him voting to authorize the use of force undeer the condition that all other options were exhausted. He has publically stated those options were not exhausted.

Where then, did he say he was for the pre-emptive invasion? Please link. Thanks in advance.

[Guaranteed]

14. Bush did what he said he would do.

He "knew" that Saddam had the WMD, and so did Kerry (which is why he voted for the IWR), Saddam wouldn't hand them over on demand, he invaded.

What's the problem?

[Gore1FL]

15. That isn;t what Bush said he would do.

While I disagreed at the time, and disagree now with Kerry's vote, to disregard the reasoning behind his vote and instead establish it as a war-first vote reaks of irresponsibility and revisionist history. I've seen the same claims in Bush's campaign ads.

The version of "Kerry supported the war" espoused here and in the Bush ads is a misrepresentation of the stance Kerry took.

Bush was supposed to eliminate all other options before taking military action, and to get UN approval for taking military action if necessary. Bush did NEITHER.

To blame Kerry for a Bush failure is simply absurd.

[James T. Kirk]

16. I think he also voted for the Patriot Act, too.

I'm just sayin'.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Question for you.

If Kerry had been President in 2002, wopuld he have brought the IWR to Congress for authorization?

I think you know the answer.

I concede Kerry should have voted against the Iraqi War. Every Democrat should have. They didn't, why? Polling certainly told them that the ppular position with their constituents was "no war for oil". Kerry helped to end the last major conflict and he, more than most in Congress, understood that war must be a last resort. Seems like an incredible "no brainer".

But a few things to consider in the context of that vote.

(1) A mid-term election was rapidly approaching. 9/11 was not investigated and the Anthrax killer who attacked Daschle and Leahy in Congress has yet to be apprehended.

(2) Flt 93 was probably headed for Congress....Dimson would have been made the dictator that he preferred, except the plane was delayed 20 minutes on the tarmac in Newark. He would have had a Quadfecta then.

(3) The President holds the intelligence cards. He is telling the American people that Iraq is a "gathering threat", that they are making nuclear bombs, that they have the capability of attacking the US in 45 minutes. They were even making the case that Hussein was in bed with AQ and probably planned 9/11. Congress has no independent access to the objective facts. Only their gut instinct to rely
on.

(4) As a US Senator/Representitive, you do have an obligation to consider your constituents safety. A nuclear bomb detonated in Worcester or Boston would kill 100s of thousands or millions. Would you want to be on the "wrong" end of that vote?

(5) Here's the kicker. What if all the Democrats had voted against the IWR? Than "BOOM", another horrible attack occurs.....what happens, in short order?

a) Democrats are absolutely crucified by the Republican Corporate Media. We become the "Party of Terrorist Facilitators".
b) Republicans pass martial law, Bush is dictator.
c) Iraq is found to be behind the attack and off we go to war.
d) The Democrats are toast in 2002 and 2004.....hell, I'm sure Delay and First would be convening investigations into the Democratic Party. The operative statement becomes, "Have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party"?

Kerry and many Democrats were given a Hobson choice, vote for IWR or vote their conscience and hope their vote did not serve up a One Party government to the Republicans for the next generation or three. And there was a chance that WMD could be hidden in Iraq....

So I think the Democrats did what was pragmatic. Vote to support the Institution of President with clear qualifiers. Bush had the mandate and could have let the hunt for WMD go on for as long as it took......but he chose not to. He also didn't: (1) Return to the UN for a vote and (2) return to Congress for approval to invade. Congress gave him the authority, but it was Bush's choice to disregard the spirit of IWR and give the UN the finger on his way into Iraq. But, as it turns out, his administration fabricated the evidence and now has gotten us mired in a mess of his own doing. It;s cost us hundreds of American soldiers lives and billions of dollars. 30,000+ innocent Iraqis have died.....and Iraq is one or 2 assassinations away from a radical fundementalist government. He alone is responsible for going to war. In fact, he has damaged the Office of President. He lied to Congress on the Causus Belli and future Presidents will be hamstrung by the reckless precedent that he has created.

This is Bush's war...Congress did not hold a gun to his head and demand that he invade Iraq....I'm sure the Republicans will try to convince the American people that the Democrats wanted this war as bad as Bush, but the facts tell me otherwise.

[markses]

18. Bottom line: Bush OR Kerry

That's the situation. With Bush, we have the guarantee that the killing machine will rev up and expand. The GUARANTEE. With Kerry, we have the hope that things may change for the better. It is as simple as that. You go ahead and do all the navel-gazing you want. People of reason will understand the situation and act accordingly (that is, disregarding these nonsensical "reminders"). People of reason know what the stakes are, your bullshit notwithstanding.

[Killarney]

19. Holy shit! Wow, I guess I'll vote for Bush then!

Where have you been for the past fucking year? Yes, people are more than aware that Kerry voted for the IWR. People have been fighting about it here for a year. But you know what? Majority rules and he won the primary. Everyone had months to be bitter that their guy lost (including my guy). It's time to get over it and realize that yes, Kerry voted for the IWR, but we CANNOT let Bush win. It's either him or Bush. If you vote for Nader, that's voting for Bush. So there are your two choices.

God, naive ideologues bore me.

[TomNickell]

20. Actually, not exactly....

Kerry voted for a resolution authorizing the -possible- use of force.

-That- possibility is what caused Iraq to allow inspectors inside its military facilities.

Bush started the war even though the inspectors were getting about everything they wanted and were reporting (accurately) that there were no WMDs.

Only Bush was dumb enough to do that.

The maneuvering on the resolution reflected no credit on the Democratic leadership. But they did not start the war.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."--Isaac Asimov

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. True. But why spoil a little disruption here?

and I like the Asimov quote!

[Loonman]

21. Karl Marx

Big whoop.

Vote for Dean, then.

[Skittles]

22. I never forget

it disgusts me

[rman]

24. many reps were mislead wrt Iraq war,

and wrt the patriot act for that matter.

GW Bush's world is black and white: "you're either with us or with the terrorists".

Now let's try not be as nihilistic as the current president. Kerry may not be the perfect president, but it's not like Kerry is equally bad as Bush simply because he voted for the war provision (there never was the opportunity to vote *directly* for or against war in Iraq, only for the provision for this administration to go at it when it saw fit to do so).

Since republicans dominate both congress and senate they have a habit of pushing through legislations at the last minute - so that no-one even has the time to read the related materials. Same with the patriot act, where the most significant provisions were at the last pages of a very volumenous document. Same with the 'war on drugs': ie the mandatory minimum sentences and the exception to the 4th amendment.

What we can blame all of them (or most of them) for is the fact that they vote on matters about which they know they are not well informed. It's like signing a contract without reading all of it - especially the fine print. That is a very irresposible thing to do especially since it affects millions of people.

[Hubert Flottz]

26. Our congresscritters were fed a lot of false information by the ..

CIA and the White House! Am I the only one who remembers this fact?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Touche!

zing! (and all that....)

[Cheswick2.0]

28. and none of us here believed it and knew that Kerry didn't really either..

am I the only one who remembers that fact?

Come on, even those of us struggling to find a way to vote for him know that he voted for the IWR for political reasons, as did Edwards and Gephardt. At least Holy Joe believed the war was the right thing to do.

[jpgray]

29. No. It usually gets posted twice a week by original fellows like yourself

:)

[truthspeaker]

31. Nope, he voted for IWR. Not the same.

He supported war if "diplomacy failed" (wording of IWR). Bush didn't wait for diplomacy to fail.

Obviously, anyone with a brain in his head should have known better than to give Bush a blank check. But Kerry is going to be the nominee, Dean and Clark dropped out, and we have to live with it.

Anyone But Bush.

[Skinner]

32. This is classic post-and-run flame bait.

I'm locking.