Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It' s Self-Righteous Crap to Claim Kerry Supports the Occupation of Iraq

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:05 PM
Original message
It' s Self-Righteous Crap to Claim Kerry Supports the Occupation of Iraq
And it's also a self-serving meme for those who never supported Kerry and have instead tried to convince folks that his vote for the IWR was an endorsement of Bush's preemptive invasion and occupation, by replacing his words with their own cynical view.


Thursday, April 15, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/14/kerry.iraq /

The Massachusetts senator, and presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said the Bush administration has failed to draw international support that would lend legitimacy to the occupation and a new Iraqi government.

A banner hanging at the campus forum demanded a U.S. withdrawal, but Kerry said that would leave "the potential for civil war."

"The course that I have proposed is to turn over to the United Nations the full responsibility for the transformation of the government and for the reconstruction," he said.

"Because I believe that as long as it is an American occupation, we will have great difficulty in staying any course and achieving the kind of stability we want to achieve."

_________________________________


Senator Kerry: End US Occupation of Iraq
Agence France-Presse- Wednesday 16 July 2003


http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/printer_071803A.shtml

"We need to get the sense of American occupation over with. We need to protect our troops. And that means that pride should not prevent this administration from going to the United Nations and doing what they should have done in the first place," he declared.

"Remember the old saying, Harry Truman's saying, 'The buck stops here'? Right now, apparently, the buck stops at Langley (CIA headquarters). And there are a lot of questions about the political input to this intelligence," Kerry told NBC's "Today" show.

"I made it very clear that their diplomacy leading up to the war was inadequate," Kerry said.

"I said I thought the president should have even done more diplomacy before he went to war. I said to the president, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war. You need to build the large coalition necessary in order to win the peace.'

"And I said very clearly, winning the war was not what was difficult, it's winning the peace," Kerry said. "And I don't think the president put a plan together to do that."

__________________________________________


Hardball Battle for the White House:Sen. John Kerry
Oct. 20, Tuesday, 7 p.m. ET


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3227001

MATTHEWS: Lets take a look at your position. Because of all the candidates, you were the most foresightful, I thought, in seeing the troubles of occupation.

This is what you said a year ago when we sat around a group like this at the Citadel.

KERRY: Im prepared to go. I think people understand that Saddam Hussein is a danger. But you want to go maximizing your capacity for victory, not beginning with deficits. Thats one of the lessons of Vietnam. The war will not just be the military operation to move the regime out and to take Baghdad. The war will be an ongoing process of how you then rebuild the country. How you build the democracy in a place thats never had it, in a place where violence is the tradition. And that is the challenge for awful us. I want to think it through, Chris, so no one has to ask the question, was this a mistake?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: You saw, sir, the violence coming. You recognized that this would not an lickety spit war, blitz war. That even after the aircraft carrier and all the celebrations, there would be fighting at us, thered be people shooting at us, and American soldiers being killed as they were just yesterday, two more guys.

Knowing all that, why do you have a complaint now in the way that the occupation is being handled? Since you perhaps more than the president saw the hell to come.

KERRY: Because the president is not putting in place a policy that most, exactly what I just said, maximizes our ability to be successful. Maximizes the protections of the American troop. Look I remember what it is like to be in a country with an M-16 where everybody around you is looking at you and you cant tell whether theyre about to kill you or not. Whether theres a kid going to walk out and throw a satchel of explosives in your boat or car or whatever it is. And I foresaw this. And I said to the president in January, Mr. President, dont rush to war. Take the time to build a coalition. Take the time to have countries with you. Take the time to have our nation with you. Because if the going gets tough, thats when it is most difficult. My judgment is that the president rushed this with all the wrong assumptions, with all the wrong conclusions, and didnt lead in the way that a president is supposed to lead.

Now my position, I know what people say. My position could not be more clear. For 7-1/2 years, we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. For 7-1/2 year, we destroyed them with Ambassador Butler. We found more chemical and biological weapons than we thought he had. We found he was further down the road to the creation of nuclear weapon than we thought he was. Then the wall come down and for four year, there are no inspections. Were given information by our CIA, that says heres whats happening in this building, senator. Here are the photographs much this is what our intelligence is telling us. I thought the responsible thing to do for our country was to force Saddam Hussein to accept the inspectors and to have the threat of force. It was right vote but the president did it in the wrong way and he is still doing it in the wrong way.

________________________________________


Kerry calls for end to "Made in America" occupation of Iraq
Apr 17 '04


http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?itemID=4443...

WASHINGTON (AFP) Democratic presidential contender John Kerry called on President George W. Bush to get rid of the "Made in America" tag on the US-led occupation of Iraq in a new campaign attack.

Kerry used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address to make a new appeal for a dramatic change to US policy in the country US force invaded in March 2003 and where they are still struggling to restore order.

"Staying the course does not mean stubbornly holding to the wrong course," said the Massachusetts senator who will take on Bush in the November 2 presidential election.

"In order to complete our mission, we must review our tactics. We need strategies that reflect realistic goals and the facts on the ground."

Kerry said Bush and other US leaders had to be "honest with the American people about the difficulties we face in Iraq" and more troops must be sent to secure Iraq.

_____________________________________

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12944-2004Apr...


NEW YORK, April 14 -- Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) said here Wednesday that President Bush's stubbornness in refusing to share authority and decision making with the United Nations and other countries has put U.S. forces at greater risk, unduly burdened American taxpayers and made success in Iraq far more difficult.

"I think the approach of this administration has been consistent and stubborn in the way that it persists in this American occupation and in proceeding down its own road," Kerry said. "It has made that mistake from Day One, and it is costing us money and I think it is costing us lives."

Kerry said withdrawal of U.S. forces should be determined by whether Iraq has been stabilized, not whether it has achieved democracy. Democracy "shouldn't be the measurement of when you leave," Kerry told reporters at an afternoon news conference. "You leave with stability. You hope you can continue the process of democratization -- obviously, that's our goal. But with respect to getting our troops out, the measurement is the stability of Iraq."

Kerry said more international support would help take the focus off the U.S. occupation. "The minute you have that international acceptance, you begin to reduce some of the capacity of people to focus on the infidel United States and to focus their energies on our occupation alone."



Me Book


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftyandproud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. don't do it kerry..
Edited on Sat May-15-04 07:13 PM by leftyandproud
don't give bush the money...don't give the pukes what they want...if you do, you lose my vote...stop pandering to the so-called "center" who support imperialism and the neo-con pre-emptive foreign policy. Stand on principle and you win in a landslide. We don't need a "moderate" in the white house in times like these..We need someone who is serious about reversing the damage shrub has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Kerry can't bring the troops home now. He won't take office until January
Kerry won't abandon the troops who are hung out in the field. Voting against the $25 billion may force the accounting we all want, but it won't bring the troops home. It may threaten the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as needed equipment, armor, and supplies have been lacking for even routine operations.

The billions already appropriated have been siphoned off for Afghanistan and other military meddling, so the issue should be to make certain the troops get what they were promised by this administration:


Statement from John Kerry on Supply Shortages in Iraq

February 03, 2004
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_020...

Today it was reported in the New York Times that our troops in Iraq were plagued by devastating supply shortages, radios that could not reach far-flung troops, disappointing psychological operations and virtually no reliable intelligence on how Saddam Hussein would defend Baghdad. Our soldiers should never be hampered by shortages of spare parts and supplies. Good planning and a willingness to listen to professional military opinion could have eliminated some of these challenges before they occurred."

These reports are further evidence of the tremendous ingenuity, skill, and determination of the men and women of the American military. Unfortunately, the supply problems during fighting in Iraq can only be added to a growing list of Bush administration failures to provide our troops with the equipment they need.
Families have been forced to pay for body armor for their sons and daughters in Iraq. Troops have been sent into battle in unarmored Humvees, and helicopters are flying without the most advanced anti-missile systems.

This growing list raises alarm about the stewardship of our military. Unfortunately, George Bush and Dick Cheney have failed to keep their promises that help is on the way for our military.

My message is loud and clear: real leadership is on the way and empty promises and photo ops are leaving.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. I see you must be the love'em and leave'em type or should that
be Fuck'em and Forget'em! Bush got us in this mess and if not Kerry, who the hell is going to get us out, Bush ya think? Like it or not those are the choices!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. I found this particularly funny.
Stand on principle and you win in a landslide.

He is standing on principle. You're just mad it isn't yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
58. he is standing in a pile of crap
right next to George W. Bush....checked your own principles lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #58
63. I'm taking one more step in refining "my DU".
:hi: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyandproud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. If he doesn't vote AGAINST this crap...
then he supports it...

"With us or against us" in this case is absolutely true. He can't claim to oppose the war, then vote for it..and he can't claim to be against the current occupation, while supporting another 50 BILLION to maintain it. Let's be real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. so if someone doesnt do it exactly your way
that is it. no room for insite, or further exploration. that is it, you way or no way

not going to cut it for me. have had that in the office for the last four years. not good enough for me. i need someone that can go beyond your black and white
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
59. you must enjoy the Bush administration
because you support it by supporting a man who voted for Bush in the legislature all to often.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #59
72. ADA rating for John Kerry higher than Ted Kennedy
Heard of ADA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. This is what ticks me off about Kerry.
I wonder if really believes that keeping the troops in Iraq even with the UN and NATO coming is going to work? I am sick and bored to death that people are buying into this "me too" notion and thinking that it's working or going to work. Kerry must change his tune about Iraq and get our young men and women home. Iraq is not going to change overnight if Bush loses. So much damage with our credibility has been done there. If Kerry does continue with this fiasco, then the Republicans will have more ammunition against him in 2008. He will be a one-termer.

John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Exactly
Edited on Sat May-15-04 08:03 PM by camero
If he keeps the troops there then he will replace Bush as The Great Satan to Iraqis. He has to send the troops home.

From those links that were put up he pretty much was saying that the war wasn't the problem it was the rush to war. He is saying he still would have went to war.

Kerry should change his attitude on this and fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. So a humanitarian disaster and genocidal civil war is a better solution?
So we cut and run...we blow up their country, destroy their infrastructure, leave them without electricity and water and show the World we are suddenly isolationist cowards.

Then the headless Iraq, newly bombed and missing its functioning infrastructure, is left for dead.

Civil war ensues. Genocide ensues. Millions die or starve. We leave a vacuum where terrorists then feel that they won. We lose military credibility.

Ah...peace.

What a load of simplistic, myopic tripe. Let's "just leave Iraq..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Everybody seems to think Iraqis cannot govern
This country has a civilization thousands of years old. Many Iraqis are educated. Why do have this outdated parental, neo-colonial attitude towards the Third World?


John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:16 PM
Original message
Admit it, you know nothing about Iraqi history
for most of those thousands of years, the Iraqis were killing each other. Do you want to see that happen again? Why do you have such a heatless attitude towards the Iraqi people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
61. what a load of crap
for thousands of years every nation on this planet has been killing each other. So , because it makes for a smarmy and childish talking point you ignore the thousands of years that Iraq had universities, libraries, culture and a peaceful civilisation, one which still contains the oldest synagogue in the world and some of the oldest churches as well (if americans havent blowen them up yet).

You are a perfect example of the neoconservative mantra that only we know what is best for the world....nice going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Did you forget that we blew up their country?
I know all about the history of Mesopotamia. The Iraqis can govern by themselves.

The point is that we can't just leave after blowing up their country and leave them for dead.

Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texican Donating Member (164 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. These Statements Could Mean Anything
Bush has said that it would be nice if the international community sent it's soldiers it Iraq as targets. So what? Is he going to pull out the troops. Yes or no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Texican, Bush is a proven liar.
Kerry has been consistent in his opposition to Bush's unilateral, preemptive, invasion and occupation.

The problem with U.S.cut and run is that we broke Iraq, we should help fix it. The problem with helping fix it is the degree that Bush has Americanized the post-invasion by taking control of Iraq's resources and imposing a puppet authority. Then there is the indiscriminate bombings, the shootings of innocent civilians by our soldiers, and the jailing of thousands of innocent Iraqis coupled with the torture and abuse of same, apparently in accordance with administration policy.

There are five months till the election and two more until Kerry assumes power. Until then, Bush will do everything to resist loosening the military's grip on Iraq. Kerry can call for, and vote for anything he wants to, the republican majority will assure that Bush prevails. That's the reality.

I refuse to attribute the most cynical of motives to Kerry's numerous entreaties against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I refuse to equate Kerry's stated intentions to de-Americanize Iraq with Bush's obvious zeal to possess the sovereign nation.

Is he going to pull out the troops? I heard yes. You hear whatever you want to hear, but you can't replace his numerous statements with your own cynical view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aidoneus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. if by "Self-Righteous Crap" you mean "Absolutely True", that's right
Look at the pathetic reasoning he gives to his so-called "opposition". Oooh, Bush hasn't done enough to allow acceptance of the occupation! If only Chirac and Putin were getting their cut of the action, the Iraqis would just sit back and enjoy their rape like they're supposed to!

It is obvious that he accepts and endorses the lies and criminal intents behind the invasion and occupation; the criticism stems on ineffective imperialist maneuvers, not the existance of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hey you don't like it don't vote for Kerry
but I will tell you this, we have soldiers now in Afganistan and Iraq, and the majority in this country do not think we should leave them hanging. You want the world to revolve only the way you think, fine, but if enough Democrat's feel that way, bush WILL be the next president, than it really won't matter.

Before we can do anything we have to win first, if the Democrat's pull another Wellstone in face, we lose!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
57. gee you are soooo connected
that you can cite the wishes of a majority of people you have never met and do not know the first thing about....coool....errr not.

Are you the type who tells women to just lie back and enjoy the rape?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. We broke Iraq, we should help fix it.
It's amazing to me that those who grouse about Iraq's lack of sovereignty are seemingly unconcerned about the power vacuum that will be left by our withdrawl. Iran should not be allowed to exploit the weakened Iraqi army, nor should Syria. There are other forces who threaten to exploit the lack of a defensible authority, like the band of idiots who follow the man who executed Berg.

Getting NATO to assume responsibility for security of the interim government is a worthwhile pursuit, if it means that we withdraw our false authority. There are many other regional members of the U.N. and NATO that have a interest in a stable Iraq. Turkey, for example. Remember, these other countries will not just take responsibility in Iraq while we sit at home.


It's obvious that you are ignoring our culpability in supporting and aiding Saddam's regime.


Iraq used chemical weapons in 1983-1984, during the Iran-Iraq war. It has been reported that some 20,000 Iranians were killed by mustard gas, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin.
In 1988, Iraqi soldiers invaded Kurdistan and rounded up more than 100,000 Kurds and executed them. In March 1988, in the town of Halabja, more than 3,000 civilians died from chemical gas attacks by the Iraqi military.

Iraq has been rightly condemned by the U.S. and most of the international community for these and other deadly actions against its citizens and its neighbors. But Iraq did not operate against its enemies alone or without our knowledge, and in many instances, U.S. support.

Nightline, in Sept. 1991 reported that the Atlanta branch of an Italian bank, BNL, was able to funnel billions, some of it in U.S. credits, to Iraq's military. The U.S. apparently knew of the transfers and turned a blind eye.

"Sophisticated military technology was illegally transferred from a major U.S. company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to South Africa and Chile and, from there, on to Iraq. The Iraqi-born designer of a chemical weapon plant in Libya set up shop in Florida, producing and then shipping to Iraq chemical weapon components. The CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies were made aware of the operation and did nothing to prevent it."

The report further states: "During the 1980s and into the '90s, senior officials of both the Reagan and Bush administrations encouraged the privatization of foreign policy, certainly toward Iran and Iraq. They made a mockery of the export control system; they found ways of encouraging foreign governments to do what our laws prohibited. They either knew or, if not, were guilty of the grossest incompetence, that U.S. companies were collaborating with foreign arms merchants in the illegal transfer of American technology that helped Saddam Hussein build his formidable arsenal."

It summarizes that, "Iraq, during much of the 1980's and into the '90s, was able acquire sophisticated U.S. technology, intelligence material, ingredients for chemical weapons, indeed, entire weapon-producing plants, with the knowledge, acquiescence and sometimes even the assistance of the U.S. government."

The New York Times reported in Aug. 2002 that during the Reagan administration, the U.S. military provided Saddam with critical intelligence that was used in Iraq's aggression against Iran, at a time when they were clearly using chemical and biological agents in their prosecution of that war.

The United States was an accomplice in the use of these materials at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including then- Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja.

The classified support reportedly involved more than 60 military advisors from the Defense Intelligence Agency who provided detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

A retired intelligence officer recalled that, in the military's view, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."

A 1994 Senate Banking Committee report, and a letter from the Centers for Disease Control in 1995, revealed that the U.S. had shipped biological agents to Iraq at a time when Washington knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranian troops.

The reports showed that Iraq was allowed to purchase batches of anthrax, botulism, E. coli, West Nile fever, gas gangrene, dengue fever. The CDC was shipping germ cultures directly to the Iraqi weapons facility in al-Muthanna.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University has a collection of declassified government documents that detail U.S. support of Saddam's regime. This is the collection that contains a photograph of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently said nothing to Saddam about his nuclear weapons program or his use of chemical weapons.

We broke Iraq, we should help fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aidoneus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Tell me..
What fixing do you see going on? I see a lot more being broken daily. A mighty blow should be struck against the tendency at work, not have a coat of paint thrown onto the outside of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. This is under a duplicitous administration
Say one thing, do another administration.

Bush drains social programs of money and laments that government can't work. He pledges to give sovereignty back to the Iraqis but he maintains his grip on the resources and will heavyhand the next 'chosen' authority.

No wonder you're cynical. I would give President Kerry a chance to deliver on his fine words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. That is such an lame excuse.
Edited on Sat May-15-04 09:27 PM by Cascadian
"We broke it we fix" is such a shortsighted view. It's like trying to fix a bee hive after you knock it over. It is about time the U.S. forces got out of Iraq. I honestly do not think the world community is going to want to come in and get us out of the mess we created. Even if they did, you will still the same carnage and bloodshed. Iraq will become Kerry's downfall as much as it is becoming Bush's downfall.

John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. We may well have to flee Iraq as Kerry has acknowledged
We broke it, we should fix it is shorthand. See above statements by John Kerry for elucidation.

Or, http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq /

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_04...

Kerry Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0318...

Kerry: The President Needs to Address How Hes Going to Fix the Instability in Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_041...

Bush Administrations Morning Spin on Iraq
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_031...


Or read:

Kerry Was Right

Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson shows how Bush is being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the strategy for Iraq that John Kerry has been advocating all along.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0414...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. We broke it we CAN HELP fix it, its not so shortsighted.
Edited on Sat May-15-04 09:57 PM by Rebellious Republica
WE did not break it, do you have a mouse in your pocket, George W. Bush broke it. I honestly do not think the world community is going to want to come in and get us out of the mess WE created.I believe basically Bush told everyone to go get screwed and that he is going to do it by himself if he has to. So now the world is telling Bush to go get screwed and finish it by himself! However, if WE were to get someone else (Kerry) in the white house, they would probably be more than willing to help. Iraq will become Kerry's downfall , so what crystal ball are you using, it could also be Kerry's shining star.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. They broke California send help!
Instead they sent Arny to help out Ken Lay and Co and mortaged CA's future with bank notes. Dont be an enabler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kerry voted his conscience
but so did Kucinich, Byrd, Kennedy and Waxman and they were all on the other side of that vote! Say what you will, apologize, rhapsodize or moralize Kerry was dead wrong then and he is STILL on the wrong side of the Iraqi question!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. No apologies necessary for Kerry
If we had followed Kerrys every admonition, we would not be fighting a war in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #13
56. horse *&*&
If Kerry had dmeonstrated one single ounce of courage, foresight or wisdom he would have joined Byrd, Waxman, Kennedy and Kucinich and not voted for the heinous Iraqi Resolution or the Patriot Act.But he DID vote forthem and he still calls for no reduction in the military budget , no repeal of that unconstitutional Act nor does he advocate the US troops leaving Iraq as soon as he is installed in the WH...a pox on frauds and pretenders!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. Oh, please...
does Kerry want to end the brutal occupation of Iraq? No.

Has Kerry spoken out against Bush's murderous actions in Iraq? No.

Kerry doesn't want to stop the brutal oppression, he wants to internationalize it. Perhaps it's a lesser evil, but it's an evil nevertheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Read much ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I read a lot, actually...
probably too much for my own good, but that's another matter.

I read what you posted, and none of it explained exactly how Kerry was opposed to the occupation.

He seemed to be opposed to Bush's unilateralism in committing the war crimes of the occupation, not to the occupation or the war crimes themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. "Oh please" give us some constructive suggestions on how to
fix this mess. How do you suppose we should go about stopping the brutal oppression, get our soldiers out of Iraq, not leave the country in worse shape than when George started this illegal and immoral war?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. It's a fantasy to think that "we" can fix it....
the Iraqis DON'T WANT "US" THERE - and if ten thousand+ dead from this war alone, plus the other atrocities committed by the US against the people of Iraq, I can't blame them.

The Iraqis will fight the US forces. Remaining there will result in a bloodbath for both sides, and skyrocketing monetary and political costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Yes , you are right the Iraqis don't want us there, and I don't want
Edited on Sat May-15-04 11:04 PM by Rebellious Republica
us there. I've been opposed to this war since the beginning,I do not believe that Kerry wants us there. The fact is we are there, and we need to at least try to right a horrible wrong. I believe that we have to do this with proper thought and planning. The build up has taken time and will take time to get out. Have you ever been in a country that has been overrun by war and pestilence? If the answer is no, then you are no better than the chickenhawks that got us there in the first damn place! I have, how about working to resolve the problem, instead of just ranting about it.














Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. So how do you propose resolving it? n/t
Edited on Sat May-15-04 10:49 PM by Darranar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Elect John F. Kerry!
Thats soooo republican, answer a question with a question, deflect and divert! You have my answer, how about answering mine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #32
55. Kerry will be much better, I assume?
What, exactly, can Kerry do that will clean up this mess?

Why do you think that Kerry will even try to enact those policies?

My point has been that the US cannot resolve this problem. It is unsolvable, because not only do neither of the candidates have any benevolent intentions towards the Iraqi people, but even if they did it wouldn't improve much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. He can start by making preparations to , A. Pull our troops out,
B.work with the UN to turnover power and contracts to other countries, C.Speed up the process for true self rule by the Iraqis. Whats so "unsolvable about that? You still have not answered a single one of my questions! Cat got your tongue?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Kerry quite clearly intends to keep US troops in...
which will result in a bloodbath.

And you have failed to explain why you think Kerry will do the things you list.

And which questions are you referring to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #66
79. I am not going to continue to play your little game until you.....
answer a few of mine, since you obviously can not remember, read or have the ability to review my replies, here they are...

Rebellious Republican (1000+ posts)
Sat May-15-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #18

23. "Oh please" give us some constructive suggestions on how to

fix this mess.
How do you suppose we should go about stopping the brutal oppression, get our soldiers out of Iraq, not leave the country in worse shape than when George started this illegal and immoral war?




Rebellious Republican (1000+ posts)
Sat May-15-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. Yes , you are right the Iraqis don't want us there, and I don't want


us there. I've been opposed to this war since the beginning,I do not believe that Kerry wants us there. The fact is we are there, and we need to at least try to right a horrible wrong. I believe that we have to do this with proper thought and planning. The build up has taken time and will take time to get out.

Have you ever been in a country that has been overrun by war and pestilence?


If the answer is no, then you are no better than the chickenhawks that got us there in the first damn place! I have, how about working to resolve the problem, instead of just ranting about it.

















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. I replied to the first one...
It's a fantasy to think that "we" can fix it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Simply enough, I don't have an answer. I think it's pretty much impossible, at this point, and I gave reasons.

We can't "fix this mess".

As for the second, the answer is "no". On the other hand, I never dodged any duties requiring going to such a nation, nor do I suggest creating them, so your "chickenhawk" comparison is innaccurate.

Now, why not reply to my post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
49. You're kidding, right?
"does Kerry want to end the brutal occupation of Iraq? No."

Read this:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0318...

"Has Kerry spoken out against Bush's murderous actions in Iraq? No."

Read this:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_043...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. Again, he's speaking out...
against Bush's handling of the war crimes, not the war crimes themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. Sematics are fun, aren't they?
"He's speaking out against Bush's handling of the war crimes, not the war crimes themselves." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Didn't bother to actually find what Kerry has said on this, did ya?
You probably won't bother to dig and look. Here's the formula if you can stand eating your words. Google Kerry and war crimes. Google kerry and Iraq prisoner abuse. Don't stop searching through the pages until you've found every reference to these. Hint: There have been several statements on this by John Kerry.

Or, don't bother. Sophistry is more fun. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. When, exactly...
Edited on Sun May-16-04 07:35 PM by Darranar
did Kerry speak out against shock and awe?

Against the use of DU munitions?

Against the use of cluster bombs?

Against restricting humanitarian relief in Fallujah and elsewhere?

Against privatizing the place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. Simply enough...
Edited on Sun May-16-04 07:34 PM by Darranar
war crimes are war crimes.

They are immoral, unjust, and illegal, whether they are committed by an international coalition or a single nation.

Bombing heavy population centers heavily and needlessly wouldn't have been more justified if the UN had backed it. Brutal pacification attempts by the occupying forces wouldn't be more justified in NATO was involved in them. It doesn't matter whether the people administrating the Iraqi occupation are American, French, Saudi, British, or Maltese - war crimes and denials of basic human rights are still immoral, not to mention almost always stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. I hit John Locke by mistake on the last post.
I was responding to you Darranar. Your argument has shifted. I know that John Kerry opposes the list of wrongs that you are attempting to smear him with, by the flimsy meme lie that he voted for the invasion and supports the occupation. You present no proof of this outside of your accusations, which are laced with half-truths and Bush meddling which you attribute to Kerry.

Yours is a circular argument without any basis in fact. It revolves around your own cynical view of Kerry's statements, and most revealing, on statements not made by Kerry presented as improbable agreement with Bush on Iraq. Your argument ignores the numerous statements Kerry has made against the invasion and occupation. You begin your argument with innuendo and defend your argument with innuendo.

A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:


A is true because A is true.


However, it is not usual for the matter to be so obvious. Instead, the chains are a bit longer:


4. A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.


5. A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. What?
There are two arguments going on here, which you seem to be confusing.

First: Does Kerry support Bush's war crimes?

Second: Should the US withdraw from Iraq?

We seem to be discussing the first one here.

I have read Kerry's criticism of the Iraq war, which he voted to authorize. His argument is generally the same: too much unilateralism, too little diplomacy, etc.

Sure, he spoke out about Abu Ghraib. So did the Bush Administration. Are they opposed to the war crimes they are committing in Iraq?

Kerry has not spoken out against most of the war crimes being committed in Iraq. He constantly challenges Bush's unilateralism and arrogance, which is a problem, but fails to challenge Bush's crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. And you assert that that means that he supports the war crimes
Sen. Kerry has put himself on the line before in regard to the issue of war crimes. I would expect him to continue to oppose such crimes.

But his opposition during the Vietnam war was careful to hold the leaders accountable first for creating the policies or for Nixon's neglect before singling out individual soldiers. I am certain that he will support an accounting of those issues, but I fail to see why you would claim because he hasn't raised these issues directly in statements, legislation, or print, that he is in support or agreement with these abuses.

You say "Kerry has not spoken out against most of the war crimes being committed in Iraq", so that means, Kerry supports these crimes. Circular reasoning at best, distortion and diversion from Bush's culpability at worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. If he is unwilling to speak out about war crimes now...
how do I know that he will fight against them in office?

Also, I think war crimes are worse than unilateralism in carrying out war, especially at the level they are occurring in Iraq. If Kerry is speaking out about unilateralism - the LESSER evil - what reasons would he have not to speak about war crimes, aside from apathy towards or support for them?

It can't be simple reluctance to criticize Bush - he is perfectly willing to criticize the lesser evil, which, if it was reluctance, he wouldn't raise unless he also raised the greater evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vetwife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
62. It is just not that simple ! Wish it were
The thing about this is congress was duped with lies and misleading the world along with the British on WMD's. Imminent Danger !

Now....Who knows what has been done with a wink and a nod from this administration regarding the whole region and keep in mind Iran and some of those folks over there have ..REALLY HAVE WMD's. They are not happy with the United States but promises were made nd we don't know what they were. It is so volatile that a quick pull out could lead us into God knows what. Things are done with the people in power to turn the world on it's ear ! It truly is and we armchair strategists have no idea how much danger we COULD be in if a Nuke is aimed right at the US for not upholding some back room deal made by this administration. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no putting it back in.

We should leave..Absolutely. No reason to have gone in other than lies that the US and the Brits told the world. ITs is just not that simple to pull out. The region is unstable and I truly believe internationalizing is the answer and get some credibility to fixing what we destroyed. There is more to all of this than ..OK we blew up your country, now we must leave.

There were constiguents, the people who voted for Kerry who was urging him the day before we invaded to do their bidding. Well, I feel he had an obligation to look at those voters and decide along with info that even Clinton was saying was true and say Go as a last resort but enforce the resolution. His decision to vote yes in my opinion was wrong but that is like a bill before congress, you don't just vote for the name of the bill, there are other things thrown in there and you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I have thought about this many times. If I were sittig there at that particuliar time I would like to think I would have voted NO. But I don't know what maybe he knew or still knows and we don't know what the reprussions of deals already made. We know that foreign leaders have talked to him. We know he talked to Clinton. We know this and I have to just believe he made a decision based on a bunch of lying chickenhawks and now stuck with the carnage and ruin of Bush's war.

We need to get some credibility about our nation and true, stop the occupation but it is just not that simple. We can forget dignity and honor, that went out the door with the human on a leash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
26. Well, it's an incontovertible fact that he supports the occupation of Iraq
Let's suppose for a second that Bush did get UN approval and built a true multinational coalition ala 1991 like Kerry said he expected when he voted for the Iraq War Resolution (For this you have to place yourself in a fantasy world where the UN wanted to get stuck in a quagmire on the flimsiest of pretexts), then wouldn't the US still be leading an occupation of Iraq? You Kerry war resolution apologists kill me-- the guy hands a psycho like Bush a blank check for war, and yet he's really against the war. He made a mistake. A huge fucking mistake. Admit it and move on (or "stay the course" and defend him). There are reasons to vote for him despite that big mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomaco-10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Thank you...
I gave up posting on this subject months ago. The delusional reasons given here about why Kerry voted for the IWR got to be too tedious for reply and there is absolutely no defense of his continued support for this mindless bloodbath in Iraq. I see this subject resurrected again and I'm asking myself, why don't they let "sleeping dogs" lie?
I had to really convince myself to vote for him once he became the nominee, but it's getting tougher by the day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. If I wanted to defend Kerry on this, I would simply reply that while I
think Kerry's position on the war has been wrong, he will likely do a better job than Bush at working with international allies in Iraq, and he will most certainly do a better job on domestic issues. This shit justifying Kerry's vote for IWR and his failure to both admit his mistake and show moral outrage on the war is ridiculous, and it can only hurt Kerry through its disingenuous nature. Let's face it, almost every fucking election in this country (especially Presidential ones), is a choice between the lesser of two evils. And in this election most Kerry voters do not think he's all that great, they just want Bush gone. Pretending otherwise is insulting our intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomaco-10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Once again you speak for many of us here......
My main concern if bush were to remain in office, would be the likelihood of SCOTUS nominations that will be appointed in the next four years. I struggle with the issues I have with Kerry on policy, but I decided this is not the time to take the moral high road. It's a damn shame when you have to go in a voting booth, pull the curtain and then can't wait to get home to take a shower. I refer to us as the hold your nose and grab a bucket group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Incontrovertible facts?
ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:


Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html


Kerry on Biden/Lugar Oct. 9th 2002

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution. I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President. The Administration, unwisely in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. However, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations, which is now embodied in the revised White House text.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_10...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Arghhh...It's still a freakin' War resolution! Besides, he still voted for
the blank check! Same argument people give me justifying Kerry's vote for NAFTA (well, he tried to get amendments for labor/environmental standards in there). But he didn't! If you can't get the shit drafted the way you want, and the way it's currently drafted could potentially be dangerous-- here's an idea-- Don't fucking vote for it!

And I repeat, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq period-- UN or no UN. And why do you think Bush didn't get UN approval? Just because he didn't try hard enough? No. Because they were NEVER going to give it to him, because a full-scale Iraq invasion is a STUPID FUCKING IDEA. That's the reason King George I didn't do it.

Oh, and there were no WMDs to disarm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
42. Wrong...
Do your homework.

At no point ANYWHERE has Kerry said that he supports the occupation of Iraq.

If you can find ANY statements where he has said that, I'd be grateful.

Cut and runners must enjoy the idea of humanitarian disasters.

Oh wait, then you can bitch that Iraq has a bloody civil war and thousands die daily due to their country having its infrastructure, electricity and water destroyed and left for dead.

Such simplistic narrow-minded dialogue about cutting and running is barely worth discussing. The "he voted for the war" and "he gave him a black check" garbage is intellectually dishonest claptrap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Did I say cut and run? Read me the IWR text and tell me where it says
George W. must get UN approval and build a multinational coalition. It simply authorizes the President to use force-- that is what is known as a blank check. Unless you would like to argue George W. illegally violated the terms of the IWR, which would be funny b/c Kerry hasn't said he has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
36. The "He voted for the War" crowd prove that FP is over their head
Whenever I hear people utter the over simplistic "he voted for the war" garbage, I tell them the truth.

Kerry voted for the UN.

Not the war.

He voted for the UN to continue with their search for WMDs. If they ran into difficulties, then the UN was to put together a fully open multinational force and disarm Saddam and do that as a last resort.

Get it?

As a last resort.

Not a preemptive, unilateral strike for the wrong reasons and lies and without having an exit strategy or without the troops being properly armed.

I've explained this to people over the months and sometimes think that this is over their head or they are just being disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Oh yeah, tell me where I can find anything even remotely resembling
this in the text of the Iraq War Resolution:

"He voted for the UN to continue with their search for WMDs. If they ran into difficulties, then the UN was to put together a fully open multinational force and disarm Saddam and do that as a last resort."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. How's that Time Machine project going?
When you're done, let us know when we can turn the clock back to March 2003. That will...like...be so freakin' kewl, dude.

Like I said about how foreign policy nuances are over some people's heads, you help prove the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Can't find a full text of the IWR
but heres snippets of some stuff I did find, concerning what he voted for:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,813046,00.h...

"Mr Bush summoned about 100 supportive lawmakers to the east room of the White House as he signed the newly passed resolution authorising the use of force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us /

"The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html <--- "Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution" by Russ Feingold

They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_23.html

"President Bush signed a congressional resolution Wednesday authorizing him to commit U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions mandating Iraq give up its efforts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998."



Seems like the IWR handed Bush everything he needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Check out this sentence....
"President Bush signed a congressional resolution Wednesday authorizing him to commit U.S. troops to

enforce U.N. resolutions

mandating Iraq give up its efforts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Something about working with the UN. Not giving them the finger and kicking them out of Iraq before inspections were done...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Yea, and he lied and manufactured documents stating
Edited on Sat May-15-04 11:45 PM by FDRrocks
that they broke UN resolutions.... In Feb of 2003 millions of Americans knew this. Shit, I knew this. Feingold knew this... with how Bush was playing up WMD's at that point the IWR was just short of giving Bush authority to invade Iraq.

edit: Actually I always forget I have access to Lexis Nexis... lemme see if I can't drudge up the IWR on there.

d edit: no such luck :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. That's right but good luck convincing the sceptics here at DU.
They view Kerry as nearly-as-bad-as-Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
76. I've read the IWR.
That's not what it says. At all. It gives Bush full authorization to do whatever he wants, as long as he deemed it in the interest of our national security. It was a Congressional rubber-stamp on his war.

Funny how some STILL voted against it- Kennedy, Kucinich, many others- even though it only authorized "the UN to continue with their search for WMDs. If they ran into difficulties, then the UN was to put together a fully open multinational force and disarm Saddam and do that as a last resort."

You're saying that you would have voted for Bush's war.

I have to say in response that that is a fucking SHAME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #76
85. The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR
That authority was derived from a loophole in the War Powers Act that allows the president to commit and deploy troops for 90 days without congressional approval. Bush had stated repeatedly before he went to Congress that he already had enough authority under U.N. Res.1441. Nothing the Democratic minority could do would have restrained Bush's preconcieved plans to invade and occupy Iraq. No unanimous expression by the Democrats would have stopped Bush from taking us to war.

There was nothing the Democratic minority in Congress could have done to prevent Bush from invading and occupying Iraq. The pursuit of congressional approval was show. Bush had the power all along to do whatever he wanted in Iraq, especially with the republican majority in both houses, in support of whatever Bush wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. Yeah yeah we've heard this all before.
Now's where the diehards say that the IWR really was meaningless. Yet it was brought up and passed anyway.

I already called it a rubber stamp. Kerry approved. Whatever it was, Kerry approved!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================

The time now is 12:16:24AM EDT, Sunday, May 16, 2004.

There are exactly...
0 days,
23 hours,
43 minutes, and
36 seconds left in our fund drive.

This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.

Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.

- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot


Click here to donate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
39. Hey, the Not-Bush has my vote all sewn up!
I refuse, however, to delude myself into thinking he has any kind of a plan for getting us out of Iraq or believe he did not support the war and the occupation. The man is a career politician and he flows whichever way the wind blows.

I'll vote for him on November 2nd. Starting November 3rd, I'll be all over his case just like thousands of other progressives just like me. We refuse to even let him take the oath of affice before we hold his feet to the fire.

So we're here to help get Bush out of office, but we refuse to buy the lies that Kerry has any meaningful difference from Bush on the Iraq Quagmire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
51. I'm thankful for all of our Democratic "career" politicians
Think about their service, not just the issues you happen to disagree with, but their public service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
60. I think all politicians of both parties think about nothing but
how to raise money in order to keep their cushy jobs.

Nothing else. That's the problem with the Duopoly we have in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. Would you have them hand their jobs to their republican opponents?
Sometimes I wonder how we even manage to hang on to these close seats. Takes alot more than bluster to remain in office. I believe the main problem is an uninformed public driven by a compromised media.

I'll vote for Walt Starr any day if he's running against a republican. Every time. Guaranteed until you stand down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
52. maybe the wishes of the iraqi people should be the guiding
principal when it comes to discussion of the occupation.

i got a feeling that they want the forign military and the legions of carpetbaggers out of their country. an occupation is an occupation, no matter if its the US, UN, NATO or martians. the iraqi resistance will shoot at all of them. can't say as i blame them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
53. If he opposed the Iraq war...
then I would like to request his help in leading the opposition to a bill for the US government to give me a check for $10,000,000. If how he opposed the war is any indicator of his capacity for resistance I would end up a rich man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
64. Iraq War Resolution AUTHORIZED use of force
Edited on Sun May-16-04 11:49 AM by welshTerrier2
first of all, whether I agree or disagree with Kerry's position on the Iraq war, I resent your labelling those who disagree with him as "self-righteous" ... i think you know what you can do with your "holier than thou attitude" ... why not show some respect to those who think this war is the worst thing that's happened to this country in a long time and at least acknowledge that Kerry voted FOR a resolution that empowered bush to wage war, be it legally or symbolically. KERRY VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION !!!

it's hard to believe we're still debating exactly what the resolution said ... some have argued that the resolution was "meaningless" because a president already has the power to wage war ... we can argue about this until the end of time ... but what can't be denied is that Congress transferred its authority to the executive branch when it voted for, as Kerry voted for, the Iraq resolution ... whether or not "bush already had the authority to wage war", Congress gave, at a minimum, its symbolic authorization for war ...

Robert Byrd (is he self-righteous too ??) said this about the passing of the Iraq War Resolution that Kerry voted FOR: Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

Here is the text of Section 3 of the Iraq War Resolution AUTHORIZING bush to use of force in Iraq as HE determines to be necessary and appropriate:

Section 3: Authorization for the 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 joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(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.


In conclusion, I consider your attitude about DU'ers who are angry with Kerry's support for the Iraq resolution to be counter-productive ... Kerry was dead wrong to vote as he did ... I have not "replaced his words with my own cynical view" ... it is you who ascribes such falsehoods to those who knew the damage support for the resolution would cause ... the damage from this insane war will affect the lives of people in this country for generations to come ... it has damaged relationships with our allies ... it has weakened the U.N. ... it has destabilized the middle east and created a climate ripe for terrorism ... and it has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people ...

And don't think any of this is indication that I don't fully and without reservation support Kerry's candidacy ... my strong opposition to his vote has not made me blind ... bush has got to go and Kerry is the only way to achieve that ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. "I chose to believe the President. That was a terrible mistake"
Edited on Sun May-16-04 07:00 PM by bigtree
My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into war. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exaggerated the threat from Iraq, to the phony information that his administration hawked in secret briefings with Congress. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

Congress is the lever. The hold the purse strings. But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces. If Bush can disregard Congress's mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable when the president ignores the law? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in the IWR says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table.

That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Why did Congress trust the president? What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.


Thus, as the resolution states:


(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) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.



Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

Then this one:

2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or on the facts at hand, to claim that John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. I believe that Congress would be loath to remove forces after they were committed.

Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged. But I reject the argument that those same principles were betrayed in just voting for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It stinks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Sen. Kerry and other Democrats didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

John Kerry opposed what the president ultimately did, before and after the vote. He didn't hide behind clipped rhetoric. He was effusive in his complaints. He was clear in his opposition to unilateral invasion and occupation.

I was also opposed to the president's actions; before the vote and at the U.N with Powell's phony presentation (I couldn't believe they bought that load.) I anguished over the vote which threatened to wipe out the Senate Democrats because Bush had taken them to the edge of the mid-term elections.

I listened to the debate. I thought Biden-Lugar and Byrd's outright rejection of Bush's open-ended first draft was superior to the final vote. But I listened to John Kerry's admonitions in his floor speech. He said that he would personally hold the president accountable if he exceeded the restraint implied in the bill.


From John Kerry's Floor Speech Before The Vote:

"I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out."
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry...


His presidential bid is a natural extension of his promise. He has been consistent in his aim to remove Saddam with international support. He has deeper knowledge than I as to the true nature of the threat posed. Sen. Kerry is no stranger to the debate over our support of Saddam's regime and the corrupting violence proliferated by Hussein. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act supported by Clinton which called for regime change. He has been consistent in his concern for the security of the region and for the potential transfer of bio or chem weapons by an unchecked Iraq. His IWR vote was an extension of that concern.

Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconceived invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check.

I think this fish rots at the head. Bush must go. John Kerry is consistent in seeking the presidency to ensure that the will of Congress, the American people, and the concerns of the international community are not disregarded in the future.


More:

July 2002 - takes the lead in criticizing Bush



(This one thanks to Sandnsea) When Dean was condemning Democrats and saying we shouldn't criticize the President during a time of war. Check the July 2002 interview with Tim Russert.

"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.

Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

Kerry also questioned the tough message directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accused by Bush of belonging to an "axis of evil" and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush has said he will use all available tools to unseat the Iraqi leader.
"The rhetoric has been a huge mistake, the rhetoric is way ahead of the possibilities," Kerry said. "Frankly, that just makes us look silly and strengthens him to some degree."
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm


If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg95...


Here are some quotes from his statement on the Senate floor during the debate on the IWR:

I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.
I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and

Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.

The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for. (The Presidnetial Determination section was eventually added to the IWR.)

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.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law.

The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry...


From a speech he gave at Georgetown on January 23rd on foreign policy. Here's a little excerpt:

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.



Kerrys press release said of Bush State of the Union address:

He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator.
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189...



In Will Pitts article, Kerry said:

This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career, Kerry said. I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. Thats what I voted for.

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadnt yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? Youre God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
68. Bumping.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
75. probably but he did vote to give the blank check to
Bush. Some did not--ie Senator Robert Byrd.

No way can I give Kerry a pass on this. He knew, he had to know, because I knew, and I am just a plain, uninformed, citizen who was keeping up with the news--thanks to DU and other sites on the internet.

No way can I accept those who voted to give
Bush the shock and awe to murder tens of thousands of innocent people, did NOT know "Bush was lying. First of all t hey have had to know that Iraq had NOTHING to defend itself, much less, threaten the United States of America. Iraq, they must have known, had no army to speak of, no armament, no navy, nor airforce.

THEY SURELY KNEW THAT

No way can I buy that they did not know that the blank check given to Bush would cause the murders of tens of thousands of innocent people who did not a thing to the great United States of Muerica, except that they lived in a country that had something the US of Murica wanted--it's oil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. Yep
Nevermind that one of the selling points endlessly pitched about Kerry is that he uncovered more Bush crimes than anyone on earth. He knew who he was dealing with. And he's shocked he was lied to? Pshaw. His short-term calculus for his presidential ambitions overrode his good sense. He only did what he did because he feared the "Democrats are weak on... (whatever)" charge Republicans have used for decades to screw Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. Plenty of points to refute this above
How could Sen. kerry have known what the political calculus would be months away? How was his vote political and other's votes in opposition automatically noble and sincere?

This is a lame meme. We still don't know the nature and extent of the information presented to the Congress. It was convincing enough for the U.N. to agree to push for the reintroduction of inspectors (Blix). The IWR provided the threat of force to back up the U.N.'s resolution. Bush pushed past all of that and invaded. He had the power to all along because of a loophole in the War Powers Act that permits the president to deploy troops without the approval of Congress for 90 days. Once deployed Congress would be loath to deny authorization and retreat.

He sought to use the Congress as cover, but they wouldn't give him that cover. The IWR expressed the sense of Congress that Bush return to the U.N. (which he did) and work to get a Security Council resolution (which he refused to). Bush disregarded the will of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his zeal to invade Iraq. No Democratic minority was going to stop him.

Some in Congress sought to use the IWR as a lever to send Bush back to the U.N. and to reintroduce inspectors. We could guess about WMD's, but the inspectors could verify. They were well on their way when Bush balked and forced them out with his aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
77. without repeating all the reasons
why the US needs to get out of Iraq I'm just wondering how on earth you can beleive this statement:

"The course that I have proposed is to turn over to the United Nations the full responsibility for the transformation of the government and for the reconstruction,"

There is absolutely NO WAY in hell that Kerry will let the US forces come under complete control of the UN, even if he wanted to.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. He says for government and reconstruction
For 'security' he has proposed NATO, which can work with limited U.S. forces under U.S. command beside other nation's forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. and hence the song remains the same
a NATO force under US control will be seen by all (quite reasonably) as a US FORCE with a wee NATO modesty patch.

Not to mention the fact that many NATO countries would have no desire to be a part of a neo-colonial plunder and would most likely be turfed from office by the electorates were they to get in bed with the US in Iraq.

I'm all for Kerry beating Bush but I think it's naive in the extreme to think it'll change the situation in Iraq - how much did the situation in Vietnam change under JFK, Johnson & Nixon - apart from getting increasingly more brutal and more bogged down until it became completely untenable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
78. I think Kerry is being political
There is a big tradition not to say you are going to bring the troops home right away. But I cannot see someone who was against the Vietnam war keeping them in any long er than he has to . Even I would bring them home orderly as they have to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-16-04 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
89. To those quick to condemn Kerry
Are you familiar with the "Burden of Knowledge?" It's a phenomenon, normally referred to in any sort of test, where a person's additional knowledge serves as a liability rather than an asset, especially in a artificially constrained variety - multiple choice, or any sort of up or down vote.

People say "Well, I knew the CIA was lying," or some such claim. The point is - our Congresspersons aren't supposed to just outright assume that every other branch of government is lying. There's a reason just about everybody in government (including Dean; I'm not sure about Kucinich) was saying Saddam most likely had weapons of mass destruction - that was the consensus from seeing both the information in the public domain and, in some cases, the classified information.

Calling Kerry "merely not-Bush" is so far from the truth as to almost be a lie; it's not a lie, since it is technically true, but the intended connotation puts it in the same category as the misrepresentations that lead most of us to condemn the Republican leadership. Kerry is one of the most liberal members of the Senate, and yet, because he has not been talking like a far-left radical, some are not satisfied.

Let's face facts - the majority of Democratic voters supported Kerry in the primary. Kerry is who our party wanted as its standard-bearer. Either you support Kerry and the Democratic Party in taking our country back, or you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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