Anybody listening to Randi Rhodes arguing the case for Kerry's signature

[Dover]

on the joint resolution? She read the Resolution and says that Bush broke the agreement by not doing what was stipulated. She repeatedly said that Kerry should have said he'd sign that agreement again today, knowing what he knows now, because it required Bush to do certain things before going to War.


But my question is....what was the argument that those who would NOT sign the agreement make? What did they see in that agreement that caused them to back away? Was it that they didn't believe Bush would stick to the agreement or was there something about the agreement that they disagreed with.

[Old and In the Way]

1. They weren't running as President or weren't up for re-election.

So they were free to vote their conscience.

I'm beginning to think that the whole IWR was put up by Rove specifically with Kerry in mind. Perhaps they were trying to nuetralize the Democrat's strongest candidate?

[LynneSin]

7. In 2002 they were looking at more than Kerry

they were looking at the upcoming midterm elections that were less than a month away.

They knew Bush was still popular and Americans believed that Iraq was a problem (the whole Niger/WMD/9-11 stuff being fed to them by the media). Kerry by no means was the strongest candidate for president back in October 2002. But several highly contested seats were up for re-election and anyone in a highly contested race would get the "They must hate America" campaign smear against them.

[AP]

11. They were playing chess. If Dems played Dean or Kerry to KB1, they

had a plan. If it was an anti-war candidate, you can bet they had a plan to screw that candidate. You can see how they're playing it now that it's Kerry-Edwards.

[htuttle]

2. Wasn't the issue the exact language of the 'requirements' on Bush?

IIRC, the language of the resolution stated that the President 'should' come back to Congress and that he should 'try' to go to the UN, but I think they left the door open for him to go to war without doing any of those things.

In other words, they were framed as strong suggestions, but not legal requirements, in the resolution's language.

on edit:

Randi's making it sound like the language was tighter than I remember regarding notification of Congress. I haven't read the IWR in a long time, so I'll defer to her interpretation.

[frankly_fedup2]

3. Well good luck if you call in . . .

If you question ANYTHING Randi says, she screams you down just like Hannity.

I cannot believe it when she does that. It makes her a verbal bully just like O'Reilly, Hannity, and others.

I listen to Randi everyday. Thank God we have SOMEONE on the radio that knows what they are talking about, and were not famous for being a comedian. Randi is gold for the Democratic Party.

HOWEVER, why does she feel the need to talk down to callers who question her or what she says? She will over scream them, cut them off, or hang up on them . . . just like Sean Hannity.

It comes across as utmost arrogance and it makes me want to just cut her off. I cannot stand arrogant people . . . whether they have their own show or not. I just cannot stand it when she does that. It reminds me of the ignorance and screaming from freepers on Washington Journal or any other call-in show.

How many times is she going to repeat herself today? It's as if she is trying to convince herself.

Randi, come on, you've got class. No lower yourself because you have a temper.

[jtb33]

9. AMEN! eom

[Ducks In A Row]

20. She doesn't suffer fools

and what freeper isn't a fool.

[frankly_fedup2]

24. She doesn't give anyone a chance to even make their point . . .

No one is 100% right, including Randi, and It just reminds me so much of how those verbal bullies on the right act. I give Randi more class then that but talking down to people like they are stupid, no excuses, right or left.

[Ducks In A Row]

29. Not true. Anyone with a point can make it, she's happy to let them

what she don't do is let them hop-skip from "point" to "point" as she shows how each "point" is a lie.

but then it's a freeper tactic not to stay on point, then whine "you didn't let me speak, you didn't let me make my point".

[frankly_fedup2]

35. Well it may be, but that is exactly what happened. I don't know if . . .

the person was a freeper or a liberal. She never got enough out to determine which. I guess Randi picked up right off. Did you hear it? Were you listening today? I think it was the very first call.

And as far as their point being wrong, that is what Hannity says about his callers that he cuts off and out yells. Then (oh this makes my skin crawl. I do not even listen to this man and I cannot even bear to look at him), he will finish his so-called point without any fact behind it (unlike Randi), and goes "Yeah, checkmate you Liberal." Even my husband said one time when we were listening to him while we were taking a trip (cannot pick up Air America where I live except on line), words came out of my husband's mouth that totally amazed me. I finally cut him off or changed the station because my husband was cussing so bad I thought we'd get in a wreck.

I just think Randi has more class then those others and it bothers me is all. I guess that is all I can say about it. We can agree to disagree, and that is what a democracy and debate is about. Not screaming at each other and getting nasty.

[Ducks In A Row]

37. could you do better?

it's not easy what she does. and she does it well. consider what kind of environment she's been broadcasting in all these years. and yet she is number 1 in her market.

she's great. she gives people a chance, if they want it. there are callers who don't want it, they just want to tell Randi what to say, what to think, without facts to back it up.

[frankly_fedup2]

41. Nope, I could not do better, and I don't think Randi is going . . .

to have any real competition in the future.

The first day of Air America she interviewed Ralph Nader. She was SCREAMING at him. I couldn't believe it. I thought, this lady is going to be big and I emailed her and told her so.

So no, I could not do better nor could anyone else . . .

I suppose that after our lengthy discussion, I would rather have a Randi that screams then no Randi at all.

RANDY RULES! (but I still wish she wouldn't scream at people). I cannot help it . . . that is just the way I feel, and right now, I cannot get past that opinion.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. it is often democrats she is yelling at

that's the problem. She screams them down too.
For instance I think she is wrong about this resolution, why would I bother calling and discussing it? She would only screaminly insist she is right.

[leftistagitator]

28. She doesn't tolerate misinformation

I think it's fair. There's so many lies and half truths floating around about Kerry, why should she let her show be turned into yet another haven for them? If you want something a little more formal listen to Franken or NPR; she's a firebrand, and a damn good one too.

[frankly_fedup2]

30. I agree with you to a certain extent . . .

Randi usually gives me my first laughs of the day. She is hilarious and that side of her is great. But she is full of piss and vinegar too, I know that. There have been times I wanted to call in to disagree; however, I figured I'd just get yelled at and I'm on her side, your side, everyone here's side.

To be honest, I find Franken a little boring, but he gives it a heck of a try and so do the others on this station. But Randi is the true star.

We can only hope that she gets a seven-year contract for over $200 million like Limbaugh just got to sit for three hours a day and lie.

I think you know what I'm saying. Luv Randi, she is smart, quick witted, and she must have a photographic memory, just amazing, but when she yells at people, it reminds me of Sean Hannity (and there is only one other person that disgusts me more than him and that would be Ann Coulter).

It would be a dream come true for me to do what she does. I'd do it for free; however, I could never compare to her.

I guess what I am trying to say is I admire her greatly, but cannot stand her temper tantrums.

As far as NOT listening to her . . . fuhgettaboutit . . . I'm not THAT stupid!!!!! LOL

[Cheswick2.0]

46. she is OFTEN WRONG

How does that help anything? She needs to listen more, she is not always the most informed person talking.

[leftistagitator]

50. Why don't you teach her a lesson...

go out, get your own show, and you can attack Kerry all you like. I know, you could call this one "Hypothetical-Iraq-War-Resolution-Gate", hell since you pulled it from the Bush* attack machine Clear Channel might actually syndicate you.

[robcon]

53. She doesn't tolerate disagreement.

She doesn't let anyone else make his/her case. It's not misinformation that she's against. Anyone who comes to a different conclusion (informed or not) never gets to finish his/her point.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. On grounds that the Congress should NEVER abrogate their war powers

to the president NO MATTER WHAT.

Uh, or that Bush Co. should NEVER be trusted. Take your pick.

:)

[deutsey]

6. These were the two points I was torn between in my opposition to it

[LynneSin]

5. I see it this way

I remember listening to Joe Biden speak about the War Resolution vote. Twice a year, Sen. Biden holds a lecture in Wilmington with himself and a guest (this past one was Hillary clinton but I missed that one).

Anyhow, after the lecture, a small group of us gathered around Sen. Biden to find out more about the upcoming war vote, where he stood and his thoughts about it. He spoke about how Bush intended to work with the UN and the Weapons Inspector and that in no way US would take on a "Go-it-alone" mentality. I think Joe, along with the others that voted for the War resolutions were honestly giving Bush the benefit of the doubt: There could a problem in Iraq, US had solid evidence and that we would not do anything pre-emptive.

I was disappointed that Joe Biden voted for the war resolution because myself, like many of us here at DU, knew better. But we were a slim majority back then. The vote also had a political kick to it - done right before the midterm elections. I think democrats were torn between several ideas including

• Maybe the pResident is right
  
• what if this backfires against me in November" and finally
  
• I'm not buying what the pREsident is trying to sell us
  

Joe was up for re-election but his seat was safe and I believed he fell into the group that was giving Bush the benefit of the doubht (first option). BUt with so many seats up for grabs in less than a month, I think that some of the support votes that democrats gave really was done in order to not piss off the bulk of their voters - many who were supportive of Bush still because of the terrorist attacks (bush ratings were still quite high at that time).

I think those that didn't support the resolution didn't trust what the president was saying AND didn't have to worry about their seat in the midterm elections.

[gratuitous]

10. I think those are elements

The idea that it could come back on someone politically to vote against the IWR certainly factored into a lot of Senators' calculus on the issue. But see? Kerry voted FOR it and is getting savaged by the Repukes. So why not vote your conscience?

Randi had a caller who was making her point very badly. And that was, knowing what Kerry knows now, why would he continue to insist that he voted correctly? Randi made a great point, that it was Bush who violated the letter and the spirit of the IWR, so why isn't Bush being held accountable? But we also know now that the media aren't going to hold Bush accountable.

So, of the things we now know: The Republicans will savage their opponents regardless of how they vote; Bush won't follow the letter of the law; Congress is certainly not inclined to hold Bush accountable for violating the IWR; and the media aren't going to squawk, either.

Knowing these four things, why shouldn't Kerry now say, "You know, when the resolution was first introduced, I had some misgivings. But I gave this administration the benefit of the doubt. They've confirmed for me and for the country that they're a bunch of lying pricks. I wouldn't authorize them to go around the corner with a burned-out match, because I don't trust them, and neither should you. They've wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives for nothing. And they won't stop until they're removed from office."

[Dover]

13. As I recall the Congress was inundated with letters, phone calls and emails

begging them NOT to sign that Resolution. So I don't know that 'we' were a slim minority. As for the reasons you propose, I suppose we won't ever know what Kerry's political considerations were, but I HOPE he wouldn't play safe politics with such a HUGE decision and so many lives and resources on the line.

So if he had ANY doubts at all about Bush keeping his agreement, then I don't think he should have signed.

[gratuitous]

14. Whoops, LynneSin said slim "majority"

And if I recall correctly, there was a majority of folks against marching into Iraq. But as we all know, depending on how a question is framed, you can turn a majority into a minority very quickly.

"Do you support just invading any other country for the pure hell of it?" Majority would say no.

"Do you support invading another country because they're right on the brink of attacking us first? Look! They have all these terrible weapons, just a hair-trigger from being launched! Run! Run or die! Aaaaaaahhhh!" Majority would say yes.

[LynneSin]

31. THat was actually a typo done by a very stressed out girl

Our side was very vocal, but sometimes I wonder if folks out there don't realize that there is a large middle-of-the-road population who don't visit FR or DU, who don't listen to Rush or Randi and who turn on their nightly news and assume whomever is on the telli is telling them the truth. And every once in awhile they get a phone caller who wants them to poll them of the option.

These people, without a doubt, outnumber us and the neo-pukes combined. And we all know those folks: folks like my parents, maybe your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends. I could list almost 100 people that I have regular contact with that supported the war because the media told them so OR if they had naggering doubts about the war they probably never bothered to contact their elected officials.

You know, I think about what I meant with the "Slim Majority" because compared to the US population we're a pretty slim number BUT compared to people who actually give a shit about what's happening in this country so much that they would take the time to call an elected official - we probably are the majority!

[frankly_fedup2]

21. Maybe you should share that with the Kerry Campaign. . .

Any information has got to be helpful, especially before the debates (cannot wait for the debates).

[realFedUp]

8. She made a good point

Rove always turns what blame should be directed to
and at Bush onto his opponent. Like flip-flopper
of which Bush is the classic "say one thing and
do another." Bush lied about the reasons US
needed to Iraq and he's the one that the ire
should be directed.

Dems get so defensive and mangled up in facts.
Just redirect the responsibility back on
the Shrub in Charge in one simple sentence.

And if you don't agree with Randi's opinion,
screaming at her won't get her any closer to yours.

[WilliamPitt]

12. This has to be the 87th time I've posted this

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period.

====

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

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

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

(snip)

PITT: Isn't VX gas a greater concern?

RITTER: VX is different, for a couple of reasons. First, unlike sarin and tabun, which the Iraqis admitted to, for the longest time the Iraqis denied they had a program to manufacture VX. Only through the hard work of inspectors were we able to uncover the existence of the program.

PITT: How did that happen?

RITTER: Inspectors went to the Muthanna State establishment and found the building the Iraqis had used for research and development. It had been bombed during the war, causing a giant concrete roof to collapse in on the lab. That was fortuitous, because it meant we essentially had a time capsule: lifting the roof and gaining access to the lab gave us a snapshot of Iraqi VX production on the day in January when the bomb hit. We sent in a team who behaved like forensic archaeologists. They lifted the roof – courageously, it was a very dangerous operation – went inside, and were able to grab papers and take samples that showed that Iraq did in fact have a VX research and development lab.

Caught in that first lie, the Iraqis said, "We didn't declare the program because it never went anywhere. We were never able to stabilize the VX." Of course the inspectors didn’t take their word for it, but pressed: "How much precursor did you build?" Precursor chemicals are what you combine to make VX. "How much VX did you make? Where did you dispose of it?" The Iraqis took the inspectors to a field where they'd dumped the chemicals. Inspectors took soil samples and indeed found degradation byproducts of VX and its precursors.

Unfortunately, we didn't know whether they dumped all of it or held some behind. So we asked what containers they'd used. The Iraqis pointed to giant steel containers provided by the Soviet Union to ship fuel and other liquids, which the Iraqis had converted to hold VX. The inspectors attempted to do a swab on the inside of the containers and found they'd been bleached out: there was nothing there. But one inspector noticed a purge valve on the end of the containers. The inspection team took a swab and found stabilized VX.

We confronted the Iraqis with their second lie. They took a fallback position: "OK, you're right, we did stabilize VX. But we didn't tell you about it because we never weaponized the VX. To us it's still not a weapons program. We decided to eliminate it on our own. As you can see, we've blown it up. It's gone, so there's no need to talk about it."

We caught them in that lie as well. We found stabilized VX in SCUD missiles demolished at the warhead destruction sites. The Iraqis had weaponized the VX, and lied to us about it.

We knew the Iraqis wanted to build a full-scale VX nerve agent plant, and we had information that they'd actually acquired equipment to do this. We hunted and hunted, and finally in 1996 were able to track down two hundred crates of glass-lined production equipment Iraq had procured specifically for a VX nerve agent factory. They'd been hiding it from the inspectors. We found it in 1996, and destroyed it. With that, Iraq lost its ability to produce VX.

All of this highlights the complexity of these issues. We clearly still have an unresolved VX issue in Iraq. Just as clearly Iraq has not behaved in a manner reflective of an honest effort to achieve resolution. And it's tough to work in a place where you've been lied to.

(snip)

Pitt: Considering everything you've experienced, how do you feel about the Iraqi government in general?

RITTER: The Iraqi government is firmly entrenched, having seen over thirty years of Ba'ath Party rule. The Ba'ath Party has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi life – cultural, economic, educational, political. It's irresponsible to oversimplify what's going on there, to try to somehow separate Saddam Hussein from the rest of the political machinery. It doesn't work that way.

[Dover]

15. Will, can you kindly answer my initial question about what the reasoning

was of those who would NOT sign the Resolution? Was it that they didn't trust Bush to follow the Resolution, or was it the content of the Resolution itself? OR was it a politicatl decision with elections right around the corner?

[WilliamPitt]

16. My understanding of the ones who didn't sign

wasn't that they *knew* there weren't weapons there, but that they objected to the language on constitutional issues. Basically, they thought Congress was giving away the store to Bush. They were right, but it wasn't about them knowing there were no WMDs.

[Dover]

17. So are you saying that Kerry made the wrong decision and that he

"gave away the store" along with the others that signed? And can you elaborate on what the constitutional issues were that concerned those who wouldn't sign?

For me it's only about Kerry's judgement, not about the WMD issue.

[Dover]

25. Will? Was that too difficult a question? Did I misrepresent your

position about those who signed? Just looking for some clarification.......regarding your statement, "they were right".

I assumed since you've hung out with Kucinich for awhile that you might have discussed this.

[frankly_fedup2]

18. Was there anyone that DIDN'T sign it? Didn't he have like

100 percent of the vote for this resolution? I'll look it up on the Senate's site because I'm guessing here. Must get the facts, only debate with the facts in front of me, that is my motto. I'll post later what I find.

[Pastiche423]

22. There were one hundred fifty six lawmakers

that did NOT vote for the IWR.

Twenty three of those lawmakers were senators.

[frankly_fedup2]

23. As I was looking for the actual voting of the resolution . . .

1441, I came upon this one site. It's kind of funny . . . but I think they are serious about what they are talking about.

<http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=292764961>

I hadn't seen this point of view before and thought I would share. (laughing)

[frankly_fedup2]

19. I know Mr. Pitt, I have to continue to post my argument regarding . . .

abortion versus IVF. Some people get it and some don't. It's worth the post every time though because we are always getting new members, and this is very informative information that you have posted above. However, this time I have cut and pasted it into my DU folder.

[robbedvoter]

27. "KOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW" = NO WMD

So, in that case, what UN, what inspections, why an IWR?

[Cat Atomic]

34. I don't think it's that simple.

The Congress passed the decision to George W. Bush. Whether you think Bush needed that power to push for inspectors in Iraq or not is meaningless- they didn't have the right to pass their constitutional duties over to the executive. It simply wasn't their call to make.

And also- when you're dealing with an administration that's been publicly pushing for an Iraq invasion for years, you don't give them a free pass to do it.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. If you have posted this 87 times isn't that spam?

Why continue posting something that is not changing anyones mind?

You are not going to change the minds of anyone who thinks Kerry was wrong on this. Neither you nor Ritter are the authority on this matter as far as I am concerned.

Plenty of good Democrats found it perfectly reasonable to vote against the IWR including Kennedy, Jeffords, Byrd etc... I am with them on this matter and that is not going to change even if you repost your Ritter interview 5k times.

[robbedvoter]

26. If no WMDs, why the need for UN?

[Cat Atomic]

32. I don't see how anyone can defend that vote.

It was one of the most shameful moments in Congressional history.

Our representatives acted like the Roman Senate with Tiberius. It was pathetic. They were eager to be slaves.

Yeah, I know there's an election on, and Kerry has to defend his IWR vote, but that doesn't change the fact that it was one of this country's low points.

[Dover]

36. It certainly seems that no one here can, anyway. Randi has tried

but there are a number of unanswered questions. And although Kerry has promised to tell the truth, I don't think he has yet done that on this issue.

I simply want to know how his mind was working.... how he was thinking about this, and why he didn't heed the advice of his good friend Ted Kennedy or others who resisted the IWR, or all the people who notified the Congress and marched in the streets, or why...if he WOULD vote the same today, he's had such difficulty clarifying this issue for once and for all. Is this what we can expect in the future......wondering WHY he's doing certain things and ignoring such loud resistance?

[G_j]

40. yes it was one of the most shameful moments in Congressional history.

I completely agree with you on that.

[rowire]

33. I Called Randi.....

several weeks ago and made your exact point. Why, if Kerry had the same information as Byrd and the other Senators who voted against authorization, did Kerry vote for authorization.

He should just come out and admit he made a mistake and that as President he will do everything to rectify it.

I watched Kerry debate O'Niell on CSPAN (1971 footage) and it was soooo refreshing to see him making strong arguments for bringing our troops home as soon as possible. He is better when he sticks to his principles than when he starts listening to his pollsters and advisors.

[Dover]

38. Well we're left wondering whether he honestly felt it WAS a mistake

or if he truly would sign the IWR again based on what he knows and the content of that document.
He has left us wondering a lot of things, and that WAS a litmus test of his leadership skills. It was a BIG deal to sign the IWR.

You seem to assume that his true inclination would have led him in a different direction were he not so reliant on other's advice. I don't feel so sure, but I don't think there is any way to answer that that would be favorable...because if you're right, then he really has become a very entrenched insider who has abandoned his basic instincts for ambition and lost his inner guidance system.
Perhaps he needs to take a lesson from Teresa.

[depakid]

39. Randi is simply wrong

she can rationalize all that she wants- the bottom line is that the way the question was prefaced, the answer should clearly have been no. A nuanced answer wasn't called for. It was a simple yes or no. As an attorney, Kerry should have known that.

He made a mistake- a big one- and now he has to deal with it... which I think his surrogate Ms. Rhodes is trying to do now.

Believe me, she was singing a different tune last week.

[Tatiana]

42. Why did these people vote NO?

Nay: 23 (21 Democrats=42%, 1 Republican=2%, 1 Independent=100%)

California:
Barbara Boxer - D

Florida:
Bob Graham - D

Hawaii:
Daniel Akaka - D
Daniel Inouye - D

Illinois:
Richard Durbin - D

Maryland:
Barbara Mikulski - D
Paul Sarbanes - D

Massachusetts:
Edward Kennedy - D

Michigan:
Carl Levin - D *author of two defeated amendements to bill that would have restricted use of force
Debbie Stabenow - D

Minnesota:
Mark Dayton - D
Paul David Wellstone - D *deceased

New Jersey:
Jon Corzine - D

New Mexico:
Jeff Bingaman - D

North Dakota:
Kent Conrad - D

Oregon:
Ron Wyden - D

Rhode Island:
Lincoln Chafee - R
Jack Reed - D

Vermont:
James Jeffords - I
Patrick Leahy - D

Washington:
Patty Murray- D

West Virginia:
Robert Byrd - D

Wisconsin:
Russ Feingold - D
--------------------------------

This is like beating a dead horse. Kerry made the WRONG decision. He made a POLITICAL decision. I don't believe for one second that Kerry wanted to invade Iraq (as opposed to someone like Lieberman who co-authored the damn resolution). Kerry knew he was running for President, and in the face of Bush's then apparent "popularity" did not want to be seen as not "supporting the President" in the wake of 9/11. I'm so sick of us (and KERRY) making excuses for that vote. It was wrong. Byrd, in an impassioned speech, illustrated why it was wrong. Democratic leadership, not only Kerry, failed this country. Daschle, Schumer, Clinton, Harkin, even Harry Reid and Max Cleland (whom I LOVE) failed us.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1009-05.htm

Anti-war activists were conducting a three-day sit-in at his St. Paul office, even as his Republican challenger was pummeling him as wobbly on national security. For Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.), the Iraq war resolution before Congress presented a lose-lose proposition likely to anger voters he needs in his tight reelection bid.

But to Wellstone there was never really much of a choice.

The 58-year-old professor-turned-senator had built a political career on standing by his convictions, which included a decided preference for international cooperation and diplomacy over war. He was not about to abandon them now, he said on a recent morning, as he put the finishing touches on a speech he was about to deliver opposing the resolution that would authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, with or without a United Nations mandate.

"Just putting it in self-interest terms, how would I have had the enthusiasm and the fight if I had actually cast a vote I didn't believe in?" he asked. "I couldn't do that."

Why did Daschle vote for IWR?

http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/congress_approves_war.html

Daschle raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security, but in the end he backed the president "because this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Ahhhhhh, he thought it was important for America to speak "with one voice." Well that's a good reason to send 1,000 Americans and over 30,000 Iraqi civilians to their deaths!

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said: "The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."

That sums up IWR. Congress delegated THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY to the President. They tried to play both sides of the fence and not take a stand. I don't think the majority of the people who voted for the resolution wanted to murder so many Americans and Iraqis. Congress would have never outright declared war against Iraq. However, an invasion of Iraq is what we got through their "support of the President." They were chickens. They should have learned the lessons history has taught us:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-07-iraqvote-usat_x.htm

The year was 1964, and the vote was on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to retaliate for two allegedly unprovoked attacks on U.S. patrol boats off the coast of Vietnam. Johnson used the resolution to escalate a war that ended nine years later and cost the lives of 58,000 Americans.

Afterwards, questions were raised about whether the attacks were unprovoked; many lawmakers became convinced that Johnson misled them.

Dingell is among a handful of lawmakers who have been in Congress long enough to have voted with the overwhelming majority in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. "I wanted to give the president the benefit of the doubt," Dingell says. "I made a mistake."

<snip>

As he weighs the Iraq resolution, Dingell says: "I've got to be very careful. I want to be sure we don't divide our country, as we did in Vietnam. I want to be sure we don't get bogged down for God knows how many years, as we did in Vietnam."

(Dingell voted AGAINST the resolution, BTW.)

What is so hypocritical about these Democrats (Harkin, Kerry, Rockefeller, Fritz Hollings, Chris Dodd, Biden, Daschle, even Gephardt) is that they voted AGAINST the Gulf War when Saddam actually made the OVERT MOVE of INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY!

All Kerry has to do is admit he made the mistake of believing his President regarding his vote in favor of the IWR and this wouldn't even be an issue. His stubbornness in insisting he did the right thing only makes things worse. We know he was wrong.

[Dover]

44. Yes........he has left a big cloud over this and cannot have the "honest"

relationship with the people of this country that he suggests he wants, until he's honest with himself, and tells the truth. I understand his fears and sense of political vulnerability, but that just CANNOT be a first priority where so much is at stake...or ever. We have to rely on him doing the right thing no matter what. THAT is courage. Wellstone, Kennedy and others deserve three purple hearts for their courage in the line of fire.

I think that is why people admire Teresa so much. She doesn't seem willing to compromise herself on the altar of political expediency. Of course, she's not a politician.

[Cheswick2.0]

48. Yes

All Kerry has to do is admit he made the mistake of believing his President regarding his vote in favor of the IWR and this wouldn't even be an issue. His stubbornness in insisting he did the right thing only makes things worse. We know he was wrong.

I really wish the people here that are willing to support every move Kerry makes would give it up on this one. They keep reminding me why I don't like him or trust him.

[robbedvoter]

43. Suggested better answer - turning tables: "Knowing Saddam had no WMD,

was never a threat to us, I TRUST you (W) would have been rational enough to never consider submitting an IWR to the Senate in the first place"

[Q]

49. The 21 Dems in the Senate (nearly half) who voted against it...

...objected to the open-ended, vague language of the resolution that gave them no recourse if Bush* 'decided' to go to war. The Bushies refused to amend the language and demanded an up or down vote.

- Those who voted against it knew that the resolution gave Bush* the authority to attack Iraq without having to come back to congress for advice and consent.

[bpilgrim]

51. well knowing that there were no WMDs and that the neoCONs would INVADE

even while inspections were WORKING might make the avg. bear reconsider.

also if you were a DU'er you had seen enough of their illegal ambitions begining with 12-12-2000 to give the neoCONs the benefit of the doubt let alone we KNEW iraq WAS NOT a threat but UBL was and STILL is.

to begin with but i'm sure it is all being pointed out above ;->

peace

[LizW]

52. Political gamesmanship

This is part two of what John Dean described in his book. Bushco is willing to use anything, including a war that risks the lives of our servicemen and women, costs billions, and kills thousands of innocents, to score political points and gather power to themselves. Part one was the vote itself, timed before the midterm elections. Part two is "squeezing" Kerry with the "if you had known" question.

It makes me sick to my very soul to see Kerry have to answer this kind of crap, but not because of his answer. I am sick because those in power in our country are willing to do anything to maintain and increase their power, even if it means killing thousands, bankrupting our nation, and destroying our status in the world.

Yes, Kerry certainly should have seen this coming, and his answer should have been better. Even now, he should be using this discussion to point out how utterly immoral this administration is. (Not that such points would get any news coverage.) But the bottom line of this whole thing is that we have to get these corrupt, immoral traitors out of office so this kind of crap stops.