You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #83: The three were not the same [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-01-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
83. The three were not the same
I think that Edwards genuinely believed in the need to invade Iraq - he was a co-sponsor of the resolution, spoke positively of the invasion and was for the war until at least late 2003. This is likely not pandering, but being - as he said - "wrong".

Kerry was one of those fighting against going to war in summer 2002. In September 2002, he wrote a NYT op-ed that was labeled anti-war. His vote was wrong, but as he has said, but it was not a vote to go to war as we did. Bush said on the eve of the vote that it was not a vote to go to war and Kerry in his speech listed the promises Bush publicly made of under what conditions he would go to war. He also said that if Bush backed away from those commitments he would speak out - which he did.

In fact, by the time Bush was moving to go to war, Kerry was among the most prominent speaking against invading. His comments at Georgetown University were consistent both with his IWR speech and his September 2002 op-ed and he was attacked for that speech by those wanting war. Here is one example - thanks to BLM -

Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.

In the summer of 1993, Iraqi agents attempted to murder former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Assassinations of top political leaders are pretty notoriously grounds for war-in fact, Saddam Hussein cited the mysterious deaths of a number of his top officials as his justification for invading Iran in 1980. If the United States had been eager for war with Iraq, the Bush plot was a perfect excuse. Instead, President Clinton fired a couple of dozen cruise missiles into downtown Baghdad.

A little over a year later, Saddam Hussein abruptly massed 80,000 troops on Iraq's border with Kuwait. The U.N. Security Council passed yet another resolution condemning Iraq (Number 949 this time). American and British units rushed into the emirate to deter a second invasion of Kuwait-and then rushed back out again.

In 1995, Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, delivering proof positive that Saddam had successfully concealed a biological-weapons program from the U.N. inspectors then operating in Iraq-but there was again no rush.

In September 1996, Saddam Hussein invaded the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq. The United States had promised to protect the Kurds. An unnamed high official was quoted in news accounts at the time predicting that a military response was "very likely"; Bill Clinton himself told the White House press corps that "reckless acts have consequences." Now the rush seemed to be on for sure-only it turned out that the consequences Clinton meant were another flurry of cruise- missile strikes.

In 1998, the U.N. inspections regime in Iraq finally and definitively collapsed. The U.N. passed another passel of resolutions; at year's end, Clinton ordered up another flurry of air strikes to coincide with the impeachment vote. When Clinton's trial ended, so did the air strikes. No rush there.

Nor was there any rushing after George W. Bush took over in January 2001. The new president seemed more than content to wait for later- maybe a second term-before taking action against the dictator who had outlasted two hostile U.S. presidents. After 9/11, it's true that some people around President Bush began to question the Clinton policy of leaving Saddam in power more or less indefinitely. And in January 2002, President Bush's "axis of evil" speech warned that more decisive action against Iraq would come soon.

There was a time when a year was considered a long time in warfare. But although in every other aspect of life things seem to be speeding up, apparently when it comes to fighting, time is slowing down, and what was once considered merely a brisk speed now feels like a dizzying whirl.

Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also outrage when Kerry spoke of the need for regime change here in April 2003, when the war was still favored by over 70% of the population. Starting in 2003, Kerry was saying it was not a war of last resort, that we were misled into war as Bush did not do what he said he would and that it diverted attention from Iraq.

It is hard to argue that his vote was pandering when he publicly spoke out as he did. The vote was wrong as it gave authority conditionally (where Bush was the one who got to say the conditions were met) that he would never have voted for in February
because it is clear from his speech he did NOT think that diplomacy was exhausted or that it was a war of last resort.

HRC is harder to assess because she was pretty quiet in 2003 - 2006 and the comments people can find are all over the map. It is clear that she likely had WJC's advise and that neither of them spoke out as Bush prepared to go to war. It was only in 2006 that she started to use words similar to Kerry's in 2003 and 2004. The difference is that if she voted for those reasons, why didn't she add her voice to Kerry's in early 2003? As she didn't, I suspect that she was triangulating - a Clinton norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"I Deeply Regret My Vote Authorizing the War in Iraq" Yavin4  May-31-08 11:02 PM   #0 
  - Agreed. The vote for the IWR and subsequent refusal to apologize/admit it was a mistake  impeachdubya   May-31-08 11:04 PM   #1 
  - Not true. It's a red herring that is more comfortable to use than just  jasmine621   Jun-01-08 12:30 AM   #40 
  - I hate Hillary Clinton for all of the above.  papapi   Jun-01-08 01:02 AM   #48 
  - It is not a red herring. I loathe Hillary Clinton for that reason compounded  Catherina   Jun-01-08 04:22 AM   #53 
  - Hillary voted FOR cluster bombs?  Canuckistanian   Jun-01-08 08:44 AM   #74 
  - Oh, BULLSHIT. Take your penny ante psychoanalysis elsewhere.  impeachdubya   Jun-01-08 04:26 AM   #56 
  - You make it sound that we didn't vote for Obama, but against Hillary.  Katzenkavalier   Jun-01-08 08:57 AM   #76 
  - Yes, it's true. There is only one viable candidate standing. GUESS his views.  WinkyDink   Jun-01-08 12:44 PM   #88 
  - I hate her because she is a Liar. Is that good enough?  JackORoses   Jun-01-08 02:21 PM   #92 
  - I have come to agree with those who note ...  Cosmocat   Jun-01-08 08:17 AM   #70 
  - Then you must not have voted for John Kerry in 2004  Taxmyth   May-31-08 11:04 PM   #2 
  - Have you ever heard his apology? nt  babylonsister   May-31-08 11:05 PM   #5 
  - Kerry was constantly plagued by that vote during the election  LSK   May-31-08 11:06 PM   #6 
  - Kerry was saying the WAR itself was wrong even in 2004  karynnj   Jun-01-08 12:14 PM   #86 
  - I worked/voted for Kerry in the general, but he was my last choice in the primary  orangepeel68   May-31-08 11:07 PM   #7 
  - Doesn't It Seem LIke There Were More  otohara   May-31-08 11:25 PM   #17 
  - of course, in the primary.  orangepeel68   Jun-01-08 08:07 AM   #66 
  - Dean should have been the nominee  Carolina   Jun-01-08 08:10 AM   #68 
  - If the issue was IWR, that is pretty strange as Kerry was nowhere near the worst  karynnj   Jun-01-08 11:45 AM   #82 
     - I supported Dean  orangepeel68   Jun-01-08 12:41 PM   #87 
        - Similar on their "war" votes?  karynnj   Jun-01-08 02:24 PM   #93 
           - Suspect whatever you want.  orangepeel68   Jun-01-08 02:39 PM   #96 
  - I voted for him in the GE  WatchWhatISay   May-31-08 11:08 PM   #8 
  - Kerry and Edwards apologized n/t  cbc5g   May-31-08 11:11 PM   #9 
  - Kerry Was The "Safe" Choice Over Dean  Yavin4   May-31-08 11:16 PM   #12 
  - It's obvious,  crickets   Jun-01-08 02:02 AM   #50 
  - I voted for Kerry because I sincerely thought he would defend the vote  Stevepol   Jun-01-08 04:25 AM   #55 
     - That's where I am at. I hope I am wrong too. Still gonna vote, if only to make them steal it. :( nt  glitch   Jun-01-08 11:29 PM   #99 
  - DUH! At least Kerry is man enough to admit a mistake.  blonndee   May-31-08 11:17 PM   #13 
  - "Mr. President Do Not Rush To War"  sandnsea   May-31-08 11:45 PM   #28 
  - Not in a PRIMARY where I had a CHOICE, I didn't.  PassingFair   May-31-08 11:56 PM   #30 
  - How does that apply to Sen Clinton? She sided with George Bush. Other people did to, but that  rhett o rick   Jun-01-08 12:00 AM   #32 
  - One sentence, but never an apology. Too *-like for me. nt  babylonsister   May-31-08 11:05 PM   #3 
  - Yup. She's a greek tragic hero - constitutionally unable to stop herself...  BlooInBloo   May-31-08 11:05 PM   #4 
  - She's no "tragic hero." That was LBJ. She's a marginal figure.  faygokid   May-31-08 11:15 PM   #10 
     - Sigh. It's a term classical greek theater.  BlooInBloo   May-31-08 11:31 PM   #21 
        - It's also the state slogan of Virginia. Sigh.  faygokid   May-31-08 11:40 PM   #26 
  - At least she has been honest in not pretending to have any regrets.  Impeachment_Monkey   May-31-08 11:15 PM   #11 
  - You are giving her credit for being honest about her support for the tyrannt Bush and his war?  rhett o rick   Jun-01-08 12:02 AM   #33 
     - Hillary's just showing her true colors, by not regreting her pro-war vote  Impeachment_Monkey   Jun-01-08 06:04 PM   #97 
        - I understand. Takes me a little while. I am blinded by my distaste for her supplication to our  rhett o rick   Jun-01-08 11:48 PM   #100 
  - And yet, hilary's campaign manager is talkin' trash about Scotty McClellan  zidzi   May-31-08 11:18 PM   #14 
  - "Regret" means never having to say you're sorry...  housewolf   May-31-08 11:23 PM   #15 
  - Agreed. Her arrogance was her downfall.  jazzjunkysue   May-31-08 11:24 PM   #16 
  - She isn't out of touch with the dem base  Nite Owl   May-31-08 11:26 PM   #18 
  - She Spent More Time Charming Conservatives Like Rupert Murdoch  Yavin4   May-31-08 11:31 PM   #22 
  - She didn't want or need us  Nite Owl   May-31-08 11:37 PM   #25 
  - She actually laughed at us and told us to vote for other candidates if we didn't like it  Catherina   Jun-01-08 04:23 AM   #54 
  - I agree that this was a big part of it. I also feel that her old style politik didn't match up well  Political Heretic   May-31-08 11:28 PM   #19 
  - Agreed on Iraq vote. But what about her comment on Iran O?  curious one   May-31-08 11:30 PM   #20 
  - It Was A Pandering Vote All Around By Edwards, Kerry and Hillary  Median Democrat   May-31-08 11:32 PM   #23 
  - Who led the party those years?  sandnsea   May-31-08 11:54 PM   #29 
  - Agree, Hillary and Bill Were Outspoken In Supporting Bush...  Median Democrat   Jun-01-08 12:49 AM   #45 
  - The three were not the same  karynnj   Jun-01-08 12:04 PM   #83 
  - In other words if Hillary Clinton was not Hillary Clinton but a differenre person  Yotun   May-31-08 11:32 PM   #24 
  - I think you're wrong on every count, and...  guruoo   May-31-08 11:45 PM   #27 
  - So your point is that she is justified for supporting our fascist leader because  rhett o rick   Jun-01-08 12:08 AM   #34 
  - You claimed a majority of her constituants opposed her vote even before they knew there were no WMD  guruoo   Jun-01-08 12:18 AM   #36 
     - AND YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG  Yavin4   Jun-01-08 12:24 AM   #39 
     - Before the WMD lies were exposed?  guruoo   Jun-01-08 12:39 AM   #42 
        - Joe Wilson? Perhaps you heard of him? Inspectors?  Median Democrat   Jun-01-08 12:46 AM   #44 
        - The IWR was passed in October of '02. The war began on March 19, '03.  guruoo   Jun-01-08 12:58 AM   #46 
           - And Bill and Hillary Clinton Were Supporting The War Before It Started . . .  Median Democrat   Jun-01-08 01:05 AM   #49 
              - That wasn't the point I was disputing...  guruoo   Jun-01-08 10:24 AM   #79 
        - yes, many of us knew the WMD threat was a hoax  Carolina   Jun-01-08 08:20 AM   #71 
     - It is easy to critize a post but much harder to make a point. What's your point?  rhett o rick   Jun-01-08 09:55 AM   #78 
  - HER NY CONSTITUENTS MARCHED IN THE DAMN SNOW  Yavin4   Jun-01-08 12:13 AM   #35 
     - So, this group of protestors comprised a 'majority of her constituants'?  guruoo   Jun-01-08 12:21 AM   #37 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-01-08 12:23 AM   #38 
           - With all due respect, doubt had been raised reg the WMDs by the time the war started  guruoo   Jun-01-08 12:31 AM   #41 
  - That, and Acting Like We Insulted Her If We Didn't Vote For Her  Edgewater_Joe   May-31-08 11:59 PM   #31 
  - It would have mattered.  AtomicKitten   Jun-01-08 12:44 AM   #43 
  - Agreed. And her popularity before the primaries was media hype.  papapi   Jun-01-08 01:01 AM   #47 
  - she's not as dreamy as John Edwards  Enrique   Jun-01-08 03:20 AM   #51 
  - Your post won't bring dead Iraqi children back either. Why are you doing this?  crickets   Jun-01-08 04:17 AM   #52 
  - lol, I'm being disrespectful of the dead  Enrique   Jun-01-08 04:31 AM   #58 
     - Yes, you are.  crickets   Jun-01-08 04:59 AM   #59 
     - pure sophistry and ad hominem  Enrique   Jun-01-08 05:10 AM   #62 
        - You've made yourself clear, far clearer than you know.  crickets   Jun-01-08 05:26 AM   #63 
           - I haven't made any such ad hominems  Enrique   Jun-01-08 05:49 AM   #65 
     - yes, you are  Carolina   Jun-01-08 08:26 AM   #73 
     - And of their living relatives!! Our entire family has suffered from this war!!  Major Hogwash   Jun-01-08 06:10 PM   #98 
  - Right, far better to flatly refuse to apologize- or admit it was a mistake.  impeachdubya   Jun-01-08 04:31 AM   #57 
  - And then she proved that she'd learned nothing by her vote on Iran.  polichick   Jun-01-08 05:00 AM   #60 
  - I don't think it was just that; if she voted differently on the war but ran the campaign just like  BklynChick   Jun-01-08 05:08 AM   #61 
  - The Clintons lost the primary season due to their own incompetence  LiberaI   Jun-01-08 05:45 AM   #64 
  - K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R!!!  Carolina   Jun-01-08 08:09 AM   #67 
  - She lacks the leadership ability to be a good Senator or President.  tabasco   Jun-01-08 08:13 AM   #69 
  - Her war vote, just like NAFTA 'rethinking'  DogPoundPup   Jun-01-08 08:24 AM   #72 
  - But that would show "weakness."  Xap   Jun-01-08 08:54 AM   #75 
  - That's what she thought.  Katzenkavalier   Jun-01-08 08:59 AM   #77 
  - Exactly right. I would be campaigning for her today if she had voted against the IWR.  Stephanie   Jun-01-08 10:38 AM   #80 
  - Apologize for that AND for voting AGAINST the Levin-Reed amendment  Liberal_Stalwart71   Jun-01-08 10:40 AM   #81 
  - She seems to have a pathological inability to apologize  JerseygirlCT   Jun-01-08 12:08 PM   #84 
  - An apology would have meant nothing.. she was done the moment she voted that way.  Milo_Bloom   Jun-01-08 12:10 PM   #85 
  - And she never could say it either. In that sense, she Hillary McClinton.  David Zephyr   Jun-01-08 12:53 PM   #89 
  - She did not utter those words because the DLC supports the military industrial complex.  Swamp Rat   Jun-01-08 12:54 PM   #90 
  - agreed  samsingh   Jun-01-08 02:17 PM   #91 
  - and maybe she ran a pathetic campaign until mark penn was booted  YDogg   Jun-01-08 02:25 PM   #94 
  - That's correct- she never once said those words and what a difference it would have made.  KaryninMiami   Jun-01-08 02:29 PM   #95 
  - Absolutely correct. nt  BullGooseLoony   Jun-01-08 11:50 PM   #101 
  - That didn't work so well for Edwards.  Radical Activist   Jun-01-08 11:51 PM   #102 
  - That and three letters: DLC  WA98070   Jun-01-08 11:52 PM   #103 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC