And the walls come tumbling down!

[ProSense]

See my dear, new friends:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5408594&mesg_id=5408594

[jillan]

1. Kerry is an intellegent man. If this is all true, why do you think he

didn't see the same things that Bob Graham, Boxer, Levin and others saw?

[Mass]

2. Was Kerry in the Intelligence Committee in 2002?

I dont think so.

[jillan]

3. No - I was just looking that up.

Who were the Senators that voted NO?

[Mass]

4. Here

You have to read Kerry's floor speech as well to understand. Unfortunately, I do not have it, but I am sure somebody else does.

I think Kerry did ONE error. It was to trust that somebody who was president would not lie. In that, he was too much of a gentleman.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[jillan]

5. comparing it to the committee:

DEMOCRATS
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV
West Virginia, Vice Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Carl Levin, Michigan
Mike Dewine, Ohio Dianne Feinstein, California
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Ron Wyden, Oregon
Trent Lott, Mississippi Evan Bayh, Indiana
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Barbara A. Mikuls
Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey

(I couldn't get the r's off of the copy - oh well)

Levin - NO
Wyden and Corzine voted no. Of Course DiFi would vote yes. Bayh surprised me. This committee had the most info. You would think that the 3 that voted no would have sent some alerts to the rest of the dems.

I hope no one thinks I am Kerry - bashing. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand. Just doing my patriotic duty ;)

[Mass]

6. I know you are not bashing - Just read the floor speech

It was clear that Kerry was NOT voting for war. His speech was as much anti-war than the ones Boxer and a few other gave.

Simply, he chose to give Bush the authority to do what he needed if it was needed (remember that the IWR authorized Bush to negotiate with the UN and start the inspections, than to go to war if the inspections were blocked). Bush did not follow the IWR.

[karynnj]

7. Wasn't Edwards on the committee too

I had read (misinformation?) that he was

[Mass]

9. He was and he is a co-sponsor of the IWR.

[MH1]

12. Yes - Members of Select Committee on Intelligence, 107th Congress:

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
107th Congress

BOB GRAHAM, Florida, Chairman
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, West Virginia
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland

JON KYL, Arizona
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
ORRIN HATCH, Utah
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
RICHARD LUGAR, Indiana

From
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate23sh107.html

S. Hrg. 107-1086 -- Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, September 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26, 2002.

[ProSense]

10. They all didn't vote no for the same reasons

There were some supporting Levin's amendment to authorize military force and would only vote for his version.

Of the 23 Democrats who voted against the authorization that passed, only six, including Boxer and Kennedy, voted against the $86 billion funding for the war.

The more important issue is that Bush manipulated the evidence and violated the resolution.

[MH1]

8. Kerry's floor speech, 10/9/2002

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

One key section:

:
....
As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
....
:

but you should read the whole thing.

[wisteria]

11. Bob Graham said he had an advantage over the others,

Boxer's vote and the others voting against the resolution may have been motivated to vote no knowing the Resolution would pass without their yes votes and a personal dissatisfaction with intelligence presented.
I think that Kerry took the threat of Saddam very seriously and his vote weigh considerably on the side of protecting this country and its people. How can anyone be faulted for doing what you thought was best for the country.

[karynnj]

16. I liked in the Blitzer(?) interview that he listed what he did do

to get as much information as possible - including going to the UK and the UN and to pentagon briefing.

It bothers me that so many on DU ignore that he clearly put enormous effort and soul searching into both the effort to try to find a way to avoid war and to figure how to vote on the amendment once it was changed as much as they could push it lo limit Bush. In addition to Kerry's belief that Bush wouldn't lie on something as sacred as commiting men to war, it might also be his investment with being bipartisan and feeling that the changes made were taken seriously on both sides. I was surprised on re-reading the IWR floor speech that he mentions that vague language that let Bush attack anywhere and for reasons like regime change and changing the middle east were taken out. That those appear to have been Bush's now admitted goals - it is more dishonest that they were explicitly taken out rather than if they were never there.

Edwards, who was for the war after it started, clearly wasn't conflicted on it at all. Yet he gets an immediate pass as soon as he says - "I was wrong", while Kerry who made a huge effort to avoid war unless absolutely necessary to keep America safe, isn't forgiven when he spoke of sharing responsibility. His nervousness before that speech and his interactions with Teresa may have related to the serious with which he took saying that and how deep its meaning was.

[wisteria]

21. I agree. n/t

[TayTay]

13. There is a hair-splitting side of this too!

A lot of people didn't think the Senate Resolution was necessary. (Hence the trap aspect of it from Rove.) The President has the authority in the Constitution to be the principle actor in securing the nation from an imminent threat. He doesn't need to go to Congress for that. (He needs to go to Congress for a declaration of war.) This action was, in the minds of many, superfluous and served the purpose of putting the Democrats on records as either favoring or opposing the war. (It was a trap and an effective one. This was designed to be a club to use against Dems in the War Fever election of '02.)

This argument is way too nuanced for general consumption and would enrage DU in general, but it is a legitimate argument. The President, as a single actor, is charged with being able to take certain actions in his role as Commander-in-Chief. If there was a genuine threat to the nation from imminent use of nuclear weapons, the President doesn't need Congressional authorization. (Mr. Kerry believed this. He stated this. Should he have become President, he would have wanted to preserve this power, with good reason.) The IWR was a resolution that allowed the President to enforce UN regulations and to meet certain benchmarks and report back to Congress before he took deadly action. (And before he took the nation to war. This part is illegal. There has been no Congressional Declaration of War. There simply has not been. The Rethugs in power now simply would not allow that.)

[MH1]

14. Ummmm....war declaration....doesn't this cover that:

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Part of the text of the IWR, copied from http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution (cause I'm too lazy to go to Thomas to get it tonight).

[TayTay]

15. Yeah, but it wasn't necessary.

The original reason that justified the war was that Iraq had WMDs. The President, according to some theories, doesn't need to invoke the consent of Congress to defend the United States from an immediate short-term threat.

The President should have had a second vote that specifically allowed him to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq after this one. (And the first IWR paper implies that their would be another vote for just this purpose.)

The argument to Congress was that there were WMDs and that this posed a threat to the US. A threat of such magnitude that the only warning sign could be a mushroom cloud. That is imminent threat. That is covered in the Constitution. Invading without that threat is war and is not covered.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.
-- John Kerry, Oct 9, 2002

[ProSense]

17. This is not a declaration.

It states:
1) specific statutory authorization consistent with section 8(a)(1) and
2)nothing in this joint resolution supersede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Which means Bush violated it.

[TayTay]

18. Yup!

He took powers that Congress never specifically assigned to him. The Congress never authorized a formal declaration of war. The Constitution specifically holds the power to declare war to be a Congressional power (as it should be in a democracy. The President doesn't go to war, the nation goes to war. Wthout the explicit consent of the People through their representatives in Congress, it is possible to have conflicts all over the place that have no public backing. The Founders knew, because they studied history, that this is dangerous. We are reaping the ill harvest of that now, as we did in Vietnam.)

The media and the Presidential campaign made this a de facto declaration of war, which it wasn't. And it was a trap.

[karynnj]

19. I don't understand 1) because I don't know what they are talking about

Although 2) seems to imply that there were still requiements of the war powers resolution that might still apply.

[TayTay]

20. The vote was a trap.

It was designed to trap Democrats into looking either unpatriotic or soft on the War on Terrorism. A lot of that debate was false from the get-go.

[wisteria]

22. Similar to the vote in the House last night, different question same

similar trap.

[fedupinBushcountry]

23. Exactly

I still remember the vote they had to support the troops but added Bush also, totally ridiculous. Just like the 87 billion, there was no reason for that 20 billion for Halliburton to be in that, another trap. They play the trap game all the time.

Just like the Iraq vote the other day, it was another trap, and I am glad Kerry did not vote for it.

Also I think the media played up the IWR vote. To me I thought it was good, because we got the Inspectors in, there was talk that Bush was ready to go to war in November, now with the resolution the inspections were working. No Senator or Congressman pulled those inspectors out, Bush did. Bush and his henchmen started the war, they arte to blame. They need to pay for their criminal act. Kerry was so right and he stated it before the war "we don't go to war because we want to, we only go to war if we have to".

George W. Bush took us to war, he betrayed the American people by not telling us the truth, he abused his power. He should be impeached. The elections next year are so very important, its the only way that this administration will ever be held accountable for what they did to the American people and to the troops.