Don't let the "Would you have done things differently" question fool you.

[Ravy]

Asking Bush if he would have done things differently, and asking Kerry if he would have voted differently if each "knew what they knew now" is asking two entirely different questions.

Kerry's vote was to give Bush leverage as he went to the UN Security Council to force Iraq to let weapon's inspectors back in, to get rid of WMD if they were found, or to ultimately remove sanctions if they weren't.

When Kerry was on board with the * stated plan, the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL was also on board. The result? Iraq allowed WMD inspectors back in, they tried to account for their WMDs, and things were doing fine.

* then changed the game plan. He didn't want the WMD inspectors to have time to complete their job, he said that either way it went, Saddam had to give up power. Not only Kerry, but the majority of the Security Council stopped supporting him when that happened.

Asking * if he would have done things differently is essentially asking him about not letting inspectors complete their job and to rush in without a good plan or enough armor.

Asking Kerry if he would have VOTED differently is a question of whether inspectors should have been sent to Iraq in the first place.

Two different questions.

[napi21]

1. That's correct, but not the way it's being played in the media.

and of course not the shrub's interpretation either. Kerry, Edwards, or some other Dems need to point out the truth.

[Lindacooks]

2. You got it!!!

I think the strangest thing about this whole 'issue' is that Bush* et all are essentially disagreeing with their own policy when they attack Senator Kerry on his voting record. But nobody seems to see that. There is a huge disconnect out there, both in the media and the sheeple's minds.

[displacedtexan]

3. Exactly!

I watched the speeches on the floor of the Senate before the vote, and I was convinced Hillary, JK, et al would not give the freak monkey this kind of power.

After the vote, I thought about why JK and Hillary voted aye...

Were I considering a presidential run, or if I wanted future Democratic presidents to have such authority, I would vote for the resolution.

Denying a president (or the presidency, as in the office) the authority to act swiftly when the country is facing imminent danger is not the same as not trusting the freak monkey, who happens to be squatting in the West Wing.

Just my opinion.

[meti57b]

4. I agree!

kick

[wadestock]

5. These carefully designed "resonating questions" infuriate me....

Yes....these questions which resonate through the media have to be watched for their apparent charming intent.....
I commend you on exposing the basic illogic of this....

Here's what I view as the two biggest "resonating questions" people have been sucked into so far and which are doing mucho damage to the dems.....

#1 - Which would you rather do....fight terrorism over there... or fight them right here in the US?....

Real neat switcharoo logic trick to get you to answer....why yes!....much better over there...a duh...

NO....I'd rather be fighting them (actually preventing them from doing another 911) RIGHT HERE!!!!!....and through ongoing arrests, and homeland security, etc...all the things that prevent 911s of the future...not making 18,000 new recruits for new 911s. But you see....by saying "we're fighting them here"....it sounds like we're somehow losing the war or not taking it to them.

This has been resonating for a long time through dittoheadland and possibly was actually conceived of by Limbaugh prior to Franks going public with it.

#2 - Isn't the world a better place now than when Saddam was in power?

Still possibly the central theme of Bush's re-election and why it doesn't matter that there was no reason to have WAR. Tends to completely push under the rug the issue of no WMD....but also effectively glides right past the ORIGINAL issue of why if "regime change" was REALLY the #1 issue at the time.....why we couldn't have effected that in a way other than taking over the entire country...

NO...quite frankly the world is an infinitely more frightening place since Bush changed fundamental US foreign policy (and fooled Congress with the "authorize the use of force if necessary") causing a Blitzgrieg attack and complete preemptive annihilation of an army which had no real fighting ability. This is how the world sees things....not through "isn't the world a better place" rose colored glasses....

Be for ever on the lookout for these resonating questions and discuss them with your family and friends....
The prime attempt is to get you to think in simple brainwashed logic (and get instantly confused if you think any deeper)....so why not just stay with the nice sounding "top level" bumper sticker mentality.....

[Ravy]

8. Have to agree with you.

Your question number 1 has been another pet peeve of mine for a long time.

What are they going to do? Drive a truck loaded with unexploded ordinance across the Atlantic?

I also like to ask the people who pose that question what ratio they use to value innocent Iraqi lives vs. innocent American lives. This usually shuts them up, but I have yet to hear that question posed in the media.

You are quite right about question number 2 as well, if you turn it around to whether it is better having a Saddam in power totally contained to where he isn't a threat, and * running roughshod over the face of the earth, it described the situation much more closely.

When I was growing up, the USSR spreading communism and their way of life thorughout the world make them the bogeyman of that time. A considerable number of Americans now support exactly the same type of world conquest by spreading democracy through force. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

* saying something to the effect of "democracies don't make war with other countries" was one of his greatest lies.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Thank you for posting this.

You are exactly right. What was also apparent was that the longer the inspections dragged out without finding WMD, the more bellicose Bush got. Why? Because, it was the neo-con-Big Oil plan to take over the oil fields all along. Their warplan was put together in the Cheney's secret energy meetings. He lied to Congress, the UN, the World, and the American people. Now, we are stuck in Iraq, shedding American blood and Treasury without oil revenues to offset the costs.

He lied about the true agenda and he violated the spirit, if not the actual Resolution. He should be impeached and tried for violating his oath of Office. Sadly, the Republican cowards will never hold him accountable. Their first allegience is to the Party, second to their own personal greed, and lastly, the American people.

[galadrium]

7. Good point, and a nice explanation too.

[AirAmFan]

9. Dubya STILL is vulnerable to that question in forthcomeing 'debates',

because he's insanely stubborn and psychologically unable EVER to admit error or apologize for what he's done.

I think this whole affair is but an echo of the press conference where David Gregory asked Dubya the question about anything he regretted having done as President, and two other reporters followed up with the same question. Even after all of this, watch what happens when Dubya gets this question during October--it's inevitable that once again he will not be able to admit he would do ANYTHING differently knowing what everyone's telling him now. He wouldn't even admit regret for his answer to David Gregory's question!

[MadHound]

10. Sorry friend, but you and Kerry are both wrong on this one

First off, an agreement to let inspectors back into Iraq was already in place before the IWR was voted on.<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/inspections_10-01.html> Thus there was no need to use the IWR to force inspectors into Iraq, they were already going in. Secondly, the IWR(Iraq WAR Resolution) had many loopholes in it that allowed Bushco to whatever it wished, including starting an illegal, immoral war. Many Democratic Senators and Represenatives saw the IWR for what it was, a blank check for Bush, and voted against it. Kerry on the other hand, knowing that he was going to run for office, made what he thought was a politically expedient vote for it, so that he couldn't be slammed as being dovish during the campaign. Third, Kerry failed to do his main job, which is to follow the will and wishes of his constituents. Messages against the IWR were running 280-1 against the IWR, a variety of reputable polls were showing that the American public wanted to wait on any vote until after the inspectors finished their job(and remember, they had already reached a deal to go back into Iraq), and millions of people, both around the country and worldwide were out in the street protesting against the IWR. And yet Kerry made a willful, political decision to go against the will and wishes of his constituents and voted for the IWR(remember, the Iraq WAR Resolution).

These are the facts of the situation, at the time. And no matter how you spin them, the outcome is still the same. Kerry failed to do his job, and in doing so, aided and abetted Bushco in bringing about an illegal, immoral war. And thus, Kerry too has the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on his hands.

[Ravy]

11. The "deal" was being discussed on 10/01/02 and the IWR

was introduced to the Senate on 10/02/02. I would say there was a strong linkage of getting inspectors into Iraq and getting them the access they needed with the Senate resolution and the threat that a 15-0 UN Resolution added to it (following in 11/02).

I stand by my statement that we were better off with weapons inspectors in Iraq, with the backing of the US Senate resolution and the new UN Resolution, even if their ultimate conclusion would have been that Iraq had no WMD and that the sanctions should be lifted (which should have happened, based on what we know today).

The Senate resolution helped to bring us to the place where weapons inspectors had the access they needed, were in the active process of destroying missles that they alleged flew a few miles further than their allowed range. Saddam was cooperating, or attempting to, despite Bush's insistance that he leave power.

The fly in the ointment, as you noted, was that BUSH did not allow the inspectors or the diplomats to do their job. That isn't Kerry's fault.

Just ask yourself, what changed that made the UN Security council make a 15-0 vote in November and turn around the following March and not even give it majority support?

[MadHound]

12. A couple of points friend

First off, Iraq had opened up negotiations to allow inspectors to return long before any resolution was being considered<http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text8-11-2002-24290.asp> The article I previously linked to is simply a report on the conclusion of those talks, talks that started without the prodding of the US, or involving the US. The process was already underway. Perhaps, maybe the US resolution hastened things a bit, but perhaps not, since the Iraqis had no way of knowing whether or not the IWR would pass Congress. In fact it was being reported worldwide that the American people were against the resolution, so there was ample reason to believe that the IWR wouldn't pass.

And while you (wrongly) praise the IWR for opening up Iraq to inspectors, I notice that you don't criticize it for also allowing enough loopholes in the resolution for Bush to drive his war through it. Many Democratic reps saw these loopholes for the blank check that they were, why can't you? Also, why do you give Kerry a pass. He failed to do his main job, representing the will of his constituents, instead casting a purely political vote with an eye on his run for office.

[Ravy]

13. I do agree with you on the blank check...

but I do believe the IWR helped us get to the point where the weapons inspectors were actually having access, we had permission to do surveillance overflights, and they (weapons inspectors) were destroying missles.

Granted that it had the holes, I think that most people can see that Bush changed the "stated" gameplan sometime after the UN Resolution.

I don't know how his constituents felt about the resolution, so I don't know if he was representing their will at the time. I believe the majority of Americans favored it at the time, I have no idea what the citizens of Mass. thought on the whole. I don't believe Kerry or most American people wanted to go to war.

Kerry has been quite forthcoming about saying he thought the resolution was the right thing to do, he thought that going to war when we did, and the way we did was wrong.

Bush is saying that when and how we went to war is right.

Also please note the title of the article you originally posted "US, UN Debate Inspections", and in it the Iraqi representative is saying that the weapons inspectors do not have unrestricted access to all sites, particularly the presidential palaces. That would have never flown, and that Iraqi restriction was later lifted. Whether you choose to give the IWR any credit for that is up to you.

I choose not to confuse presidential abilites with presidential actions. Giving a president the authority to use war as a last resort would have been a powerful tool in ending the Iraq situation peacefully. It was my hope at the time. I believe it was Kerry's hope at the time. And, we were well on the path to ending it peacefully until * put an abrupt end to the process that (I beleive) the IWR helped put in motion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Don't let the "I would have done things differently" squirm fool you.

Kerry was asked, "Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently on the IWR?"

His answer was "Yes". He now KNOWS that Bush was going to ignore the security council and go to war. He now KNOWS that there were no WMD or al-Queyda connections. He now KNOWS that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. He now KNOWS that about the death toll of Iraqis and GI's and Abu-Ghraib and all the rest.

Yet, he says he would still have voted for it.

The statement that he would have "done things differently" is meaningless. He wasn't president then. Hell, even some of the BushCorp backers admit they would have "done things differently" in hindsight.

Apparantly he hasn't the courage or the sense to stop backing the illegal and immoral invasion and subjugation of the Iraqi people.

[Ravy]

15. I believe his answer was "No".

And he said that he thought that any president should have been able to have those powers in the same situation. He also stated that he would have used them (the powers) far differently.

The situation in Iraq could not and should not have continuted indefinitely. The Iraqi people were suffering because of the sanctions, Saddam was regularly shooting at our planes. I believe the IWR vote moved things in the right direction. I still maintain that it did, and I believe this is what Kerry is saying when he says he would not have voted differently. Not only Kerry, but remember that the UN Secuity council soon after voted 15-0 for basically the same thing. The world wanted to see an end to the situation.

Bush was the one who mucked things up well after the IWR vote and the seurity council vote, and eventually lost the backing of many Americans who supported him at the time, many Senators who voted for the IWR (including Kerry), and most of the Security Council.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The "I was too stupid to realize that Bush was going to war" defense.

Won't fly. 23 other senators, including the senior senator from Kerry's state saw through the bullshit. Not to mention most of the people of the world.

Now, some who voted for the resolution are stating that they were "mistaken". A pretty thin argument, but good enough. Kerry still sticks to his pathetic vote for war.

Saddam was ruined. The country was falling apart due to the (very questionable on humanitarian grounds) sanctions. His military was a wreck. Our highly vaunted "intelligence" thugs failed to notice any of this despite almost constant surveillance. Saddam would have been overthrown by his own people in due time.

The Security Council voted for it in a vain effort to keep us from launching the invasion, not becuase they thought it was a great idea.

Now we have a firm hold of the tar-baby, Kerry still talks of "finishing the job". The "job" being installing a puppet government to continue to oppress the Iraqi people who don't want us there.