This should answer everyone's thoughts on Kerry's "authorization" vote

[noahmijo]

First take a look at what exactly it entails.


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.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Read the entire resolution here:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Now as you can see this is an authorization that allows the president to take action IF and ONLY IF diplomatic and peaceful means have been exhausted.

It DOES NOT say "Go to war NOW!"

Bush LIED and MISUSED this authorization hence to me why the statement "Bush Lied Thousands Died"

Because he did not exhaust all measures and Saddam was NOT an imminent threat.

Also for further reading allow a run-though of Kerry's statement on this vote:







Full statement found here:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html


So after all this what's Kerry's crime? he trusted the president not to lie and not to misuse his vote. Even Micheal Moore has said exactly that.

This should answer everyone's questions I hope. Should Kerry have explained further? yea he should NOT have given an answer that rethugs and Democrats Against Kerry (you know who you are) would've been open to debate on. He should elaborated far more, and if he had, the media should be smacked for not recording it for the rest of us to hear and read.

However, if you take some time and read the substance behind it all you'll see what Kerry did and said was in fact not that of a man hungry for war, but of someone who was looking out for the nation's safety not party differences.

[JohnKleeb]

1. thank you for that

Personally the concern shouldnt be on his vote but will he eventually bring home and help them out, and I for one believe he will. Maybe not on day 1 of his presidency but he will.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Anyone who still promulgates this canard is not on the side of truth

Clearly.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[noahmijo]

3. what canard? that Kerry is "pro-war"?

[Cronus Protagonist]

50. The canard that Kerry voted "for the war"

When he really voted for the "big stick" and expected Bush to threaten and only use it as a last resort in order to ensure compliance by Hussein in the inspections process.

It's a fine point to make, but important to swing voters.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[noahmijo]

5. Your page rocks

I am stealing most of your sounds. This is too cool.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. Glad you like them... here's something else you might like

It's not linked on the web page because it's too long for most people, but if you like the audio, maybe you'll like this little video...

http://brainscream.com/mp3/wtc-Roger_Waters_and_Waking_Born-World_Trade_Center_Tribute.mpg

It's 69 megs, so not for dial-up users, but I guarantee it's worth the download.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[robbedvoter]

4. . Too bad he'd have voted for it even KNOWING there were no WMDs

I'd also love to know the reasons of not supporting the Byrd and Kennedy amendments requiring W to come back to Congress, go back to UN before actually declaring war.

[noahmijo]

6. So that the GOP could've turned around and told everyone

That Kerry would've not have allowed the president to go to war even if they DID have WMD?

Double edge sword, the answer he gave was the lesser of the damning in my opinion. Since the vote only allows war if there is a real threat and all other options have been exhausted it's safe to support that side which is the side he's been on since day one.

So break it down, even then he supported the idea of the president responding with war HAD THERE BEEN A THREAT AND ALL OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED.

The Bush camp restructures it to read "Kerry would've supported war NO MATTER WHAT" Which is a lie and not the case.

[paulk]

18. If we had KNOWN there were no WMD

there would not have been an Iraqi War Resolution! The question Kerry was asked was a hypothetical, and MEANINGLESS.

[noahmijo]

21. He should've said that, Kerry I mean

Get no argument from me there.

[paulk]

38. he did, sort of

The last paragraph - which was left off of almost every news report - he said something to the effect that Bush needed to stop asking hypothetical questions and start giving some answers to the American people.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Agreed there, it's a dumb question

Either way the Bush team was going to use it to say that he's a flip-flopper.

[Mr_Spock]

7. It's nice to see someone who cares to talk about facts.

I've always thought that he would have given the Murderer in the White House enough rope to hang himself with. Too bad the Coward in the White House used the rope to strangle Iraq and kill thousands of innocent people to fulfill some bizarre crusade avenging his father. The current resident of the White House is a simpleton.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Section 3 (a)(2) is pretty much the point.

UN Res. 1441 called for inspections. Section 3 (a)(2) provides for the ability to enforce Res. 1441.

[wuushew]

14. The IRW is in material breech of 1441

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

How can the United States Congress pass something that is illegal under international law if the only way to force Hussein to comply was to destroy his government?

[nolabels]

35. They passed a resolution, not a Law

They just gave the chimp the authority to do his job (which he didn't). How many different ways will this have to shown to people before they get what happened?

In any kind of court case, this evidence of what actually happened with the legal authority would be what was legally admissible in court.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be the only way a gray area like this could be made more exact and spelled out in detail.

[library_max]

9. There it is. The truth. For all to see.

Now fit it on a bumper sticker and we're in business.

:(

[noahmijo]

10. Ha ain't THAT the truth bro

[Eloriel]

11. Here's the problem, noahmijo, and it's actually 3-fold (if not more)

From your IWR quote:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

1. Iraq simply wasn't a threat. If John Effing Kerry couldn't figure that out on his own, why the hell didn't he simply take note of the FACT that not even any of Saddam's neighbors were the least bit concerned about him?

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

2. We didn't have the fucking RIGHT to enforce UN Resolutions when they clearly didn't want them enforced (esle we could've gotten their ringing endorsement of our war -- and don't look now, but we didn't, did we?). Much as we might like to think and too often behave otherwise, we are not the world's boss, nor the UN's boss.

3. Whether it's in the IWR or not, authorization for this war ALSO MEANT AUTHORIZATION FOR BUSH'S ILLEGAL, IMMORAL AND HITLERESQUE PRE-EMPTIVE WAR DOCTRINE.

And here's a freebie for you, just because I'm feeling generous:

4. The reason I fault John Effing Kerry so much for his war vote (actually, by this time there are two reasons, but my ovverriding reason) is that he was a Vietnam War Hero, and came home to be a Vietnam ANTI-War Hero. And then eventually BECAME one of those callous old men who send YOUNG men (and now women) off to war that he once protested against. SHAME on him, shame, shame for all eternity on him.

The other reason (now that you've got me going) that I'm especially pissed about his IWR vote is that it's CLEAR he did it for one reason and one reason only: his precious Presidential hopes and dreams, and he hasn't the goddamned guts to stand up and say "I was wrong."

I hope I live long enough to see him sniveling on some national radio program as I once heard Robert MacNamara sniveling, looking for the forgiveness he'll never have, talking about his book in which he said, "We were wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong."

I'll vote for John Effing Kerry, but ONLY because this is a national emergency. I pretty much loathe him, and there's not a lot he's going to be able to do about that short of renouncing his cruel, heartless, meaningless, self-serving vote for an illegal, immoral, unjustified and eternally unjustifiable war.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT HE (SAYS) HE EXPECTED BUSH TO USE BETTER JUDGMENT OR WHATEVER, the whole fucking premise of the war was fucked up, and so is he.

[Tatiana]

30. You hit the nail on the head, Eloriel!

The other reason (now that you've got me going) that I'm especially pissed about his IWR vote is that it's CLEAR he did it for one reason and one reason only: his precious Presidential hopes and dreams, and he hasn't the goddamned guts to stand up and say "I was wrong."

He voted against the first damn Gulf War under Bush I. And we had allies back then! And Saddam had invaded another nation. Kerry knew Bush would invade Iraq. The press reported on it months before the invasion ever took place. To suggest that he thought Bush would use better judgment is BULLSHIT. Whatever the language of the resolution read, Kerry knew he was voting to send our troops overseas and to maim and murder civilian Iraqis. Byrd spoke on the floor and damn if everything he said would happen didn't happen. Kennedy told us why this was a bad idea. Levin tried his damn best to offer an amendment to keep invasion off the table without authorization from Congress. Wellstone voted against the measure even though it could have meant being voted out of office.

[Egnever]

47. If I wasnt married

I would be stalking you!

Much love for you!

Glad you are still here!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[wuushew]

12. Nope it is still a pre-emptive justification for use of force

which is illegal and immoral. I don't care if Iraq violated ten million U.N. resolutions. If Iraq was such an international problem then the U.N. itself should have started the ball rolling. When Iraq invaded Kuwait the U.N. started the pressure and the US followed. Bush by virtue of this resolution did everything ass backwards with Kerry's approval apparently.

Any time military action is taken preemptively it is correct to do so if one is in danger of imminent attack. The POTUS does not need to ask Congress in order to respond.

Since that was not the case those members of Congress who voted yes are guilty of pre-meditated threatening of a sovereign country.

[peacetalksforall]

13. There's some missing logic here....

if Kerry Edwards Clinton Shirmer and all the others think that they voted to give the President authorization provided 1 2 3 and one the of three was a provision that he go through the UN and then he didn't, because he pre-empted the UN plus the rest of the world and then if K E C & S and all the other Senators were disappointed, then why the hell did they keep quiet so long?

I am still furious. They are weaklings and limp excuses for order and accountability. Sorry to be so blunt. But we all know why they didn't speak up until forced to - votes and no guts. Hey, you guys, Education works. Timeliness works. Pretending...doesn't work.

[radiclib]

44. What do Kerry Edwards Clinton Schumer(sic) have in common?

They all think they might be President some day.
What do Kennedy and Byrd have in common? They're too old to be afraid to tell the truth.

[Wheelie_Alex]

15. You are preaching to the chior, Dude!

If Kerry did not see that he was voting for the war, then he has no business asking us to trust his judgement by making him president. There was going to be a war if that vote went through. Regardless of the wording of the resolution, Bush ONCE GIVEN THE POWER was going to war. It was obvious to even the dimmest idiot.

Now Kerry comes out "This is what I said, but this is what I meant!"
And most of the people hearing him are classifying it as bullshit. They are not going to dig around and look at the "semantics" of it.
He voted to go along with the President in going to war with Iraq.

Dammit, John Kerry! Stand up for once in your life say something and later when asked about it, REAFFIRM IT! Fuck that "This is what I said, but this is what I meant" shit.

[noahmijo]

17. Yep I'm not disagreeing with those that think Kerry should grow some balls

And just outright say "This motherfucking bastard LIED and misused the vote I gave him to protect this nation if there was a threat NOT invade a nation that he has yet to prove was a threat to us"

I'm disagreeing with those who say Kerry is a war-mongor just like Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

19. yes I agree completely

:shrug: if he was such a warmongrel, why would some of the biggest voices against the war come out for him.

[Wheelie_Alex]

20. I like Kerry. His heart is in the right place but,

it in furiates me when he is less than forceful in his stands or decisions. Just once, a "Yes! I voted for XYZ! Yes! XYZ was a fucked up program, but YES! DAMMIT YES! I DID VOTE for it!" You know even if he took this stance on the IWR on. If he forcefully admitted he went along with it but was wrong, he would gain a lot more respect and votes than trying to be a "politician" about it.

Come, John. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[noahmijo]

22. This is more the talk I want to hear

And I expect to hear it soon, and far more when he's elected

[Pastiche423]

23. You expect to hear it soon?

Why?

[noahmijo]

24. Okay not soon

NOW

I think we're starting to hear it little by little, I dunno why but I feel like the Democrats know something we don't they could be pulling a rope a dope on Bush and the uppercut is going to come during the debates.

As of now it seems like they're letting Bush just punch himself with his bullshit lies and not bothering to waste time trying to counter what everyone knows is bullshit.

[Wheelie_Alex]

26. I think the debates could trip Kerry up.

Bush has already labeled Kerry as a flip flopper and a dodger. If Bush gives one of his straight out of "Deliverance" Aw Shucks answers and Kerry spouts convoluted answers that appear to give him an out, voters are going to pick up on that. If anything he says during the debates comes close to "This is what I said, this is what I meant" he is sunk, believe it! People do not want to hear that shit.

If Kerry is anything close to a question mark, the undecideds and swing voters will go with the Devil they know, instead of the Devil they don't.

[radiclib]

45. Right.

Bush sets the bar so low all he has to do is not drool on himself. And if he gets off one of those insipid Reaganesque "There you go again" lines, we're all doomed.

[Pastiche423]

33. Ah...

The "Democrats have a plan" spiel!

Now, I seemed to have heard that before. Let me think....

Oh yes, it was in 2002, right before the mid-term elections.

And boy did it work for them then, huh?

It worked so well that we lost the friggen Senate majority!


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

[Eloriel]

34. Oh, God. Don't be so naive.

I can't tell you how many misguided threads there were after the Selection and for MONTHS during those early Bush atrocity-laden days by DUers who kept saying, "Surely the Dems have a plan. They're just biding their time. Soon they'll strike."

IT NEVER HAPPENED. The Dems didn't have a plan, they were fucking clueless. John Kerry is no different on this score. Don't go thinking there'll be some miraculous change in him, or that there's a "rope a dope" plan under foot. The ONLY thing they've got the wit to do is simply stand aside when the Repugs are being stupid and hurting themselves, and that only because they're too clueless to think of anything different to do whether or not that's happening.

Get over it. Join Howard Dean's efforts to get a whole new BREED of Democrat elected in over 500 races across the country. THAT is our only hope: take our party back along with our country.

[noahmijo]

39. You know I agree to a certain extent

The thing is though you want to play mudsling with the kings of mudsling. If Kerry and the Democrats ever got the nerve to start getting nasty the GOP would just get nastier and spread more lies, ect you get the idea.

It would just be a nasty-fest who can be meaner? So Kerry is picking the positive angle while Bush gets on the attack angle.

Is it the best strategy? well the pro is, Kerry comes off as new and refreshing when he presents his plans on the issues, while Bush comes off looking as angry with nothing to offer.

Con: Kerry shows himself to be someone that lets Bush bitchslap him left and right.

So it's tough to call it ya know? but one thing I do agree on is pushing Dean's agenda ALOT more. In fact I am totally in favor of screaming at Kerry to adopt some Dean like ideas and as you can see I am pushing for the election of really liberal Senators especially the one mentioned in my sig.

[Wheelie_Alex]

25. It better be soon.

Just from personal observations dealing with my customers, the hemming and hawing and "explaining" of his IWR vote has turned more of them off than a straight "yes" answer.

[brentspeak]

28. Ya, agreed.

But it's not too late to make up for it. Next time he speaks in public, something like "In principle, I would vote again in favor of granting a president of the United States the authority as detailed the Iraq war resolution -- with one exception, AS LONG AS THAT PRESIDENT IS NOT GEORGE W.BUSH. Congress and the American people can't afford to be stabbed in the back ever again!"

[noahmijo]

40. I'd buy that for a dollar!

[Pastiche423]

16. One hundred fifty six lawmakers voted NAY

on BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq ("War Resolution Act of 2002").

Kerry vote AYE.

Further, we all know what he has stated publically about how he would vote today.

Dress it up, put bows on it and call it my cousin, Lucy...

IT STILL MEANS THE VERY SAME FUCKING THING!

Kerry voted for it because he wanted it and still wants it.

Whatta liberal!

Wait, make that a Sensible Liberal!

[Tatiana]

27. Why did these people vote NO? (repost)

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. If he was less interested in his political future at the time of the vote and more interested in doing right by the American people, he would have, at the very LEAST, supported Levin's amendment.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I agree with most of this but I think Kerry is doing the right thing now

I think that it is better that he stands by his vote than go back on it. Either way, Bush will call him a flip-flopper. And although he may have voted for the IWR for his political future and may be standing by it for his political future, the future of this country largely depends on Kerry's political future.

[Tatiana]

37. All it takes is one statement.

All Kerry has to say is that he voted for IWR because he believed his President, as so many did. Unfortunately, he was misled.

Problem solved.

Obviously, those who voted against IWR did not trust Bush. Kennedy had been burned when Bush stabbed him in the back on NCLB. Kerry, on the other hand, decided to trust the President and got burned as well. All he has to do is illustrate that point. Insisting it was the right thing to do is not enough. It was WRONG and 23 Senators knew it was wrong.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. If he said that he regrets his vote then Bush would say that he's...

Turning his back on the troops and saying that they are there for a mistake. Yea, I wish we had a nominee that had voted against it in the first place but more than that I'd much rather have a president who has the decency to call congress back into session AFTER the election to vote on a war resolution rather than having them do it a week before the election.

[peacetalksforall]

32. I miss him more than ever.

When you have/had a hero, you don't want to settle for less.

Thanks to Mark Dayton also.

Yes, Kerry has to do something - I've only talked to a few people in the last couple of days - they don't like the sticky situation either.

Too many people are ABB's and not enthusiastic about Kerry, but I see a lot of K/E signs around and not so many B/C signs and when I do see them I can't tell if they are four year old signs or not.

There are a lot of brains advising Kerry - surely someone can dream up something that works regarding Iraq.

Then, his brainy advisors can work on Cuba and Venezuela.

We can't go around angry for ever.

No matter what the words were and still are....the bottom line is killing. When you go for it, but try to draw a line...it becomes very complicated.

[no name no slogan]

41. Mark Dayton gets better and better

He may have a stiff challenge in 2006 when he's up for reelection.

At the MN state party convention, he announced a new plan to get the US out of Iraq within SIX MONTHS. It is completely feasable and workable even given the present situation.

Better yet, Dayton came out early and strong for John Kerry, so he has immense credibility now with this plan. He's been busting his hump here for both John Kerry and end to the Iraq war.

In fact, a number of my fellow Kucinich delegates went up to Mark at his Saturday night party for the delegates and thanked him for his powerful Saturday speech and plan. Dayton thanked each one personally and told them to LIGHT A FIRE UNDER JOHN KERRY with our anti-war message.

This leads me to believe that Kerry WAS actually against the IWR (and is against the continuing war), but his spineless advisors have him convinced to take the so-called "middle ground": defend his indefensible IWR vote, and continue the indefensible occupation of Iraq-- not to mention keeping a PERMANENT US military establishment there, even after the "occupation" has ended.

Right now, the IWR is water under the bridge. It happenned, and we cannot change it. HOWEVER, we CAN change what's currently going on in Iraq. Right now, 70% of all Iraqis want us to unconditionally withdraw from Iraq NOW. Over 80% of Democrats now oppose the continuing war, as do over 50% of Americans as a whole.

What Kerry needs to do is announce a plan to withdraw US troops within six months of taking office (like Clinton did in Somalia, which was Bush I's failed military adventure). If Kerry is smart, he'll announce this plan in late September/early October, just in time to blunt any possible "October Suprise", and lock down the anti-war vote who may be doubting his sincerity about ending the war in Iraq.

[Tatiana]

43. I have no doubt that Kerry was, in his heart, against IWR.

Which, in my opinion, makes his vote FOR it even more damning. Lieberman, I understand. But Kerry's "yes" vote went against everything the man has stood for in his career. He knew it was the wrong thing and he went along with it anyway. He knew people would die and he let it happen. The fact that he IS a caring man who knows the tragedy of war is what makes his vote so unpalatable. That fact that he would vote against his conscience and that he wouldn't stand up for what was right makes me wonder whether he will stand up for what is right when he is in the White House. Or will he cave in to political pressure?

[Hippo_Tron]

49. You also have to examine the political situation at the time

Remember that Bush had approval ratings in the high 70's and undoubtedly that was from intentional milking of 9/11 for as much political gain as physically possible. Nobody knew that they wouldn't find stockpiles of WMD's, ties to Al Quaeda, or that Wolfowitz had such a shitty post-war plan. The unfortunate truth was at the time, John Kerry felt that the only way that he'd have a shot at winning the election was to support the war and hope that the focus would turn onto the economy like it did for Bush's father. I believe that this is why so many people passionately supported Howard Dean and had a lot of trouble turning to Kerry when he won the nomination. Dean was really the first mainstream voice to say "yea I'm against the war, and I'm proud of it."

Unfortunately for Kerry, he now has to live with his Iraq War Resolution vote and I think that at least politically he's better off sticking with it. If he says that if he knew now what he knows today
(which BTW is a bullshit question) that he would not vote for the IWR then Bush would accuse him of turning his back on the troops and accuse him of saying that they are there for a lost cause.

And you know what? Maybe Kerry's vote was a mistake that he just won't admit to. I say big fucking deal, our idiot-in-chief did the exact same thing. When asked "What is your biggest mistake so far" he was speechless and finally said that he couldn't think of any mistakes. Of course that's long forgotten by now thanks to our mainstream media.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Don't forget Dick Durbin, either

Durbin is becoming the leading voice for the progressive wing of the senate.

[Bush was AWOL]

46. I agree Kerry made the wrong decision

but think he must stand by his vote for his political future. Bushco dictates the events in Iraq and Kerry knows that. If he says the whole thing was a mistake, who knows what we will see.

I'd personally like to see him admit his mistake-because I believe John Kerry is against all wars and voted on this war as strictly a political decision, which disappoints me. But, with that said, Bush must be defeated and I will support whatever he feels is necessary in order to get Bush out of the White House.

[welshTerrier2]

36. read the f***ing words

as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

why keep bringing up the same useless argument over and over and over ??? why do you and others continue to do this on DU ... we all have formed our opinions ... Kerry's hideous Iraq vote is a sore spot with many of us who are supporting him ... what do you hope to gain by endlessly introducing this topic ...

do you think you found some great revelation that hasn't been beaten to death on DU? trust me, you have not ...

you cannot argue that "your judgment" is that bush lied and misused the authorization when the authorization explicitly says as he determines ... when you vote for wording like that, as Senator Byrd correctly pointed out, you hand bush a blank check ...

look, i agree with you that Kerry would have handled the situation very differently had he been in office ... but he wasn't ... and his vote left the prosecution of the war up to bush ... 100% up to bush ... and for that reason, i will never agree with the vote Kerry cast ... most of us knew that if the resolution passed, it meant war ... we knew bush would not build a real coalition ... we knew bush would not respect the vote in the U.N. ... and we knew bush would not give Hans Blix time to complete his inspections ...

so i swallow this bitter pill and support Kerry with money and effort ... but don't keep rubbing my nose in this shit ...