You don't REALLY believe Kerry would have fucked up like * has, do you?

[Cuban_Liberal]

I've seen several posts here lately that are taking Sen. Kerry to task for his vote on the IWR. Sen. Kerry has clearly explained why he voted as he did, and has said that he would do so again. Although I was and am anti-war, I can understand that others may feel differently, and I respect their right to differ with me on this issue. What I don't understand are the posts here that not only criticize Kerry's vote, but carry with them the unspoken assumption that he knew or should have known that the Emperor of Crawford would abuse the authority granted him under the IWR. I think that's a totally bogus assumption, because a.) there's no evidence whatsoever that Kerry believed that that would happen, and b.) there's no way in Hell that Kerry would have done what Bush did.

They are NOT the same on Iraq, y'all--- not then, not now.

[Cocoa]

1. not if he tried

no way Kerry could compete with Bush, who has practiced his whole life fucking stuff up.

[childslibrarian]

2. Only if he suddenly turned

Into an irresponsible swaggering moron with an incapacity for compassion towards others...

[latebloomer]

3. Why wouldn't he know that Bush would abuse the authority?

Everybody here knew. Ten million people on the streets knew!

Why would he have possibly thought Bush was trustworthy? Wasn't it clear as glass that Bush was foaming at the mouth to go to war?

No, I think Kerry was voting the "safe" way, anticipating his upcoming run. Or else he really does believe in the PNAC agenda.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. There's no objective evidence of that.

At the time, support for the IWR was high. As I said initially, I was and am anti-war, but that was a distinctly minority position at that point in history. Let me restate: there was and is no evidence whatsoever that Kerry knew or should have known that Bush would abuse the authority the IWR granted him. Care to prove me wrong by providing some?

[latebloomer]

5. I don't know about "objective evidence"--

I would have to do some research in order to find it, but I know that Bush was making bellicose statements about Iraq at least since September 11. He was bound and determined to go to war, and even when Saddam made concessions, like letting in the inspectors, he still kept rattling the sabers-- he wouldn't take yes for an answer. The resolution, and going to the UN, were attempts to make the world think that he was going about it the right way-- but it was very clear that he was going to go in, come hell or high water.

Didn't you think so at the time? If so, why?

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. The reason you can't is because there isn't any.

I thought Bush wanted to invade Iraq, certainly, but by no means did I believe that it was a foregone conclusion.

[latebloomer]

11. This is silly

How could there be "objective evidence", anyway? Bush wasn't gonna come out and say, "I am going to war no matter what".

We could tell by his attitude and behavior, and we were right.

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. Oh, you "could tell", huh?

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

22. and you couldn't?

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. No, and neither could you.

You could guess, or maybe you had a 'hunch', but the bottom line is that you didn't know.

:eyes: right back at ya.

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. Will Pitt's book with Scott Ritter laid out the no WMD case very neatly.

Quite a good read.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Are you also saying John kerry was an idiot?

It's pretty difficult to read your post in any other way, GreenArrow.

[GreenArrow]

28. no, John Kerry is not an idiot

John Kerry knew exactly what he was doing when he cast his aye vote. While I believe he is largely sincere in his criticisms of the way Bush Inc. has prosecuted the war, he fundamentally agrees with our purpose in being in Iraq. Our presumed NATIONAL strategic interests there are long-standing and largely static, regardless of the party in power at any given time. Bush's handling of the invasion threatens our strategic interests. Kerry has said on several occasions that there "was a right way and a wrong way" to to it, and that Bush chose the wrong way--the unilateral approach, punctuated by mendacity, brutality, ham handedness, bullying.

[Zhade]

33. DING DING DING! Yes, indeed. You nailed it.

NT!

[quaker bill]

6. Rove's powerpoint presentation

"Focus on War" as the election theme for 2002 was broadly available and in the news. If that was not a clear statement on the character of this administration, I don't know what more it would take. How about the "you don't roll a new product out in August" line?

A large number, (if not most) world leaders are substantially more intelligent and harder to read than Bush. I would not recommend that you go with this line of logic. It implies that Kerry is a truly poor judge of character.

I have to believe that he had a better understanding of Bush than your post implies, or else we are in real trouble here.

[Old and In the Way]

7. And what if they had found WMD in Iraq?

A "no" on IWR and Kerry's candidacy would have been toast. Did you know in October of 2002, for a fact, there was no WMD? Many people were against the war because they could see the danger of of an Iraq quagmire. There was, by no means, consensus on whether there were WMD. Personally, I didn't think there were....but I wouldn't have bet the farm on it either.

Kerry made clear what his qualified vote was for: supporting the office of President to make his case at the UN and authorize action IF Saddam did not cooperate. Bush gave the Senate, us, the UN, and the world the proverbial finger and invaded to futher his personal and political agenda. It's his War and he alone is responsible for the mess he has created.

[latebloomer]

8. i don't even buy the premise

that Iraq was ever a threat to us.

Constant hype about it from the Bushites and practically everyone had to jump on the bandwagon about disarming Iraq.

The whole "threat" was concocted so we could get a stronger foothold in the Middle east.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. WMDs in the hands of ANY hostile regime are a threat.

Any regime which is hostile to our nation which also has WMDs must be viewed as a threat; to not so view them is naive in the extreme. Whether Iraq had WMDs at the time of the IWR vote was debatable, but the fact that they posed a potential threat to us if they did have them is NOT debatable.

[latebloomer]

13. So Iraq was gonna come over here and invade us?

Its neighbors weren't even worried about Iraq, for God's sake.

This has gotten so deep into the national psyche that hardly anyone ever questions it-- Oh, big bad Iraq! Such a threat! USA just cowering in its little boots! :eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. Nice straw man.

That's not even what I said, so I must assume that you agree with what I did say, since your reply to my post was a straw man argument.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Yes, in hindsight, you are correct.

But, as sure as you are now, you (and our leaders) had no positive proof. Look....if Kerry had been President, IWR would never have been on the table. At some point, we would have had to get past the embargo and no-fly zones. Kerry may well have pressed to make sure Hussein was de-clawed, but he'd have no interest in getting us into this military sandtrap.

But this was not Kerry's choice...it was Bush's. This was played like a big political poker game. And it was Bush's game, table, casino, and he had the big pile of chips. Bush ante'd up his "evidence".....Kerry's hand was weak (he didn't know for a fact that their wasn't WMD's). Was Bush bluffing? He had no way of knowing. If Kerry goes all in and loses, he's out of the running for President. So he elected to fold and stay in the game. Looks like he made the smart choice.

Remember, no one put a gun to Bush's head and forced him to make a unilateral invasion into Iraq. It was his decision alone and it is his folly that will hang like a millstone around his neck.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. You are neither old, nor in the way.

Your post is a truly lucid exposition of the facts, and I thank you for it.

:hi:

[GreenArrow]

23. And what if they had found WMD in Iraq

they didn't, not while the inspectors were allowed to work, nor would they had the inspectors been allowed to continue. Assuming inspections had continued, for a prescribed period, what would have prevented Bush and Co. from simply stating that Saddam was not complying and doing what they wanted to do to begin with? And there would have been scarcely a peep of protest against it.

[sondee]

12. Kerry's vote on the war...

I have supported, and will continue to support Kerry. I understand why he voted as he did on the war even though I was in disagreement with him.

No, I don't think that Kerry would have handled the war in Iraq in the reckless and careless way that Bush did. I doubt that we would have went to war with Iraq, I think that the weapons inspectors would have been given the chance to finish the job, and if there were reasons to go to war, I believe we would have done it with the United Nations at our side.

Now, I do have a bone to pick with Kerry. When the Republicans threw out this last challenge to Kerry asking, "If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote to give Bush the power to go to war? I do not understand why Kerry didn't say, not just NO, but hell NO, that he wouldn't have voted to give Bush such powers if he had known at the time how those powers would be misused in such a reckless and irresponsible way. How could anyone vote yes when Bush has shown what he will do if he is given any kind of power? I do think this was a mistake on Kerry's part. I realize that for Kerry to have answered in such a manner, the Republicans would have gone back to the waffling accusations, but most of us see through that rhetoric.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Was he confused by the question?

"Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted the same way?"

(1) Based on the Bush's handling of situation and the mess he got us into, the obvious answer is no.

(2) Based on Kerry's intent to give the President (the office of) the authority to make his case at the UN and add the power of the US military to back up UN inspections, the obvious answer is yes.

I think Kerry's answer addressed his interpretation of the question which was (2).

[Old and In the Way]

18. Welcome onboard, by the way!

[jpgray]

15. I've defended Kerry on this issue, but his statement was ill-conceived

It's true that a vote for authorization is not the same as a vote to go to war--there's more than a superficial difference. However the IWR was not a good bill for a variety of reasons, mostly because it was unconstitutional in spirit and very vague regarding the limitations of its use. Also it was plain that Bush was not interested in using that authorization towards a peaceful end, and therefore should not have been trusted with that kind of open-ended authority. A good president could have used that flawed resolution in a good way, but Bush? His reputation just as president by that point tells against granting him that authority. For those reasons, the initial vote was wrongheaded.

Next, his recent statement. He says in essence that knowing what he knows now he would still vote for the authority, but he would use it properly. This doesn't make sense to me. Is Bush no longer present in this scenario? Is he saying he would want that authority as a diplomatic tool if he were president at the time? It is far too vague to be a good statement, and gives many the impression that it is vague on purpose to allow for favorable interpretations from a few different angles.

That said, people who yell 'I can't vote now' are just playing the drama queen--this campaign statement has everything to do with trying to dodge a political bullet and nothing to do with providing a wholly honest glimpse of Kerry's views on Iraq. In this climate, I would call him a fool if he did attempt to give straightforward and pragmatic opinions on these things.

[Philostopher]

29. I'm with you on this one.

I think Kerry is trying to answer a different question from what he was asked, or else he just plain dropped the ball. Either way, I think it was a poorly-conceived response.

That being said, all other things being equal, I have to believe that Kerry -- in the same spot, and having all the information the Bush* Administration was privy to, which we may never know, would still have been more thoughtful and cautious about sending a bunch of kids into a virtual hellhole. He's no chickenhawk, whether he's a hawk or not; he knows what it's like to find yourself in that hellhole.

The only one in the Bush* cabal with any credibility (Powell) was beaten like a redheaded stepchild when he tried to talk nuance and consideration. Whether there truly was discussion between Powell and the chickenhawks, or whether it, too was a cynical attempt to make it appear that they gave all possibilities due consideration, again -- we'll never know.

Kerry can't go back and un-vote on the IWR. He did what he did and he has to deal with the consequences, which at this point happen to be political. He can regret that Bush* 'fucked things up' like he did in Rolling Stone about a year ago, but that's about as far as he can go. He can't undo it, and I think he sees saying he regrets it now (whether he does or not) as not being politically expedient. The right wing is going to use anything he says, but I suppose he must believe (or somebody in the campaign must believe) that expressing regret over that vote would make him look weak, or give Bush* more ammo than trying to move on.

The time to weep and gnash was when he made the vote, not now. There are many of us out here who regret that enough representatives felt comfortable givng Bush* that kind of power because we were suspicious of how he'd use it. Obviously, it was abused -- and we all hooted and groaned about it when it happened, because we were afraid it would be. Iraq's a clusterf*ck, but ultimately it's the Dim Son's fault. They handed him power in hopes it would be used thoughtfully; it wasn't.

I think those who voted to authorize it knew he'd abuse it, too, but I think they were as overconfident of Rumsfeld's abilities as he, himself was about them. I think they thought we'd hit it, hurt it and get out, and I think they thought if they'd voted 'no' and the whole thing was over in a couple of months, and the Iraqis were happy, they'd look like assholes.

Hindsight is always perfect, but those of us who think pre-emption is always bad (and I'm one of them, don't get me wrong) would have been the only ones who would have been happy to know our representatives had voted against allowing Bush* to 'avenge his daddy' if they'd had a relatively quick and painless success over there; the swing voters everybody's courting right now, whoever they are, probably would have kicked those who weren't on the bandwagon to the curb.

My observations are worth what you pay for them, of course. I think they all voted the way they did because they were afraid of voting agin' it and the whole operation being madly successful. They'd have been marginalized, if that were the case. The way it went down, people like Kerry and Edwards can now say 'we gave him the authority and he didn't go the distance' honestly, and there was no chance they'd be embarrassed by voting 'no' and having things go well over there. They're politicians. On a vote like that, they have to consider all possible outcomes, and let's be honest -- a successful operation in Iraq would have left many who voted 'no' on the resolution very embarrassed.

I don't like it -- I don't believe in 'prophylactic war' -- but I like a lot of other things about Kerry; enough that it's not a deal-breaker for me. What's done is done, and what happened leaves him open to criticize the way the invasion was prosecuted. Had we gone in and the Iraqis strewn the streets with flower petals, like Rumsfeld said, guys like Kerry and Edwards still would have looked like they'd made the right decision. I think they honestly hoped that was what would happen -- the most sophisticated, well-funded army in the world should have been able to make that happen. It's neither Kerry's nor Edwards's fault Rumsfeld didn't do his homework to make sure it happened. I don't think it should have happened at all, but I'm not running for the highest office in the land.

[Zhade]

34. I agree with some of this.

However, I think there's no way for you to honestly assess why some people say they can't vote for Kerry now. It's simply impossible for you to discern people's feelings, and to say that all who feel they can't vote for Kerry now are "drama queens" is somewhat arrogant and dismissive.

I have to disagree with your assessment that a vote for IWR wasn't a vote for war, at least as expressed by Kerry, because of the question he posited to b*sh "about misleading the country on how we would go to war". That indicates, to me, that Kerry knew the vote enabled war.

I do agree with your comment on the unConstitutionality of the IWR, though I believe it is in both law as well as spirit, as Congress has no legal right to cede its war-making powers (I'm aware of the earlier, also-unConstitutional War Powers Act). For that reason, and the fact that b*sh was fighting like mad to NOT limit IWR to Iraq, Kerry should have voted no.

I understand there is no way to go back and change that vote, a vote I marched against. I accept that. I will, however, continue to underline the reality of that vote, especially once Kerry's in office. He has some things to answer for, and he'll be hearing from quite a number of people about this, I think.

Once he's in office, to hell with unity - at that point, it's our duty to hold him as accountable as we're trying to hold these guys (though, of course, the degree differs).

[depakid]

17. Kerry should have known and the vote was a mistake

one which he compounded the other day by saying he would still vote for IWR, even knowing what we know today.

Kerry wasn't born yesterday and it was all too clear at the time (especially to jaded Washington insiders) where BushCo was headed. While it's understandable that he believed he needed to vote for IWR, especially given the political pressure, and I accept his explanation- that doesn't mean that reasonable people aren't disappointed with his actions, myself included.

That being said, we're stuck there now, and it's pretty obvious that Kerry is more capable of putting together some sort of coherent policy that might at least cut our losses. No matter what Kerry the politician might say, I think Kerry the man is well aware that this is a no-win situation and will do whatever is politically feasible to get our men and women home. That in and of itself is reason for the anti-war left to support him.

[Zhade]

30. If by that you mean he would never have invaded...

...it might depend on who would have been advising him at the time.

If it was the guy from my signature, who knows? But the fuck-up was the illegal war, not the way it was handled.

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. "But the fuck-up was the illegal war..."

We have a winner! I mean exactly that! Kerry might well have gone to war with Iraq, but it would have been under the auspices of a UNSC resolution, if he had, something Bush couldn't be troubled with.

[Zhade]

32. Hmmm. I should have been clearer.

The war was illegal not solely due to the lack of a UNSC rez, but also because it was unwarranted.

Iraq posed no threat. Zero. We were never justified in invading and occupying that country.

So, in the spirit of my clarified statement, I reiterate that the advisor noted in my signature thinks Kerry would, indeed, have "probably" gone to war against Hussein.

Assumedly, his advisor is closer to Kerry and can divine Kerry's views better than you or I can. Additionally, Kerry has not (to my knowledge, I could have missed it) stated that Rubin's remarks are uncharacteristic of his mentality.

So, to answer the original post in this thread, I can say that at least one of Kerry's own advisors feels he would have "fucked it all up" and gone to war against a country that didn't attack us and posed us no threat (unless, of course, the advisor himself sees the manner of the war, rather than the war itself, as the problem).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.