IWR: Why did Kerry vote against the Levin/Byrd amendments?

[wtmusic]

Kerry claims he supported UN involvement in the decision to go to war. Or did he? Following is Sen. Levin's amendment to IWR which would have required a specific UNSC resolution authorizing war (the key word here is "pursuant"):

"(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution."

What have we here? It's another amendment, this one by our esteemed Sen. Robert Byrd, which goes even further:

"SEC. 5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes."

Kerry voted against BOTH amendments, either of which would have categorically, undeniably kept us out of Iraq.

Can you say "blank check"?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r107:./temp/~r107Nrl8y1

[Snivi Yllom]

1. im dying to hear the defense of voting against this

tick tock tick tock....

[Walt Starr]

3. How dare you question the front runner!

/sarcasm

:hi:

[Snivi Yllom]

5. lol

it's really a simple question.... ;)

[Birthmark]

2. Kerry did that because...

...he is inherently evil. He and his Skull and Bones brothers are dedicated to raining fiery death on all things good. It would be far, far better to re-elect *. /sarcasm

[HFishbine]

4. I think the discussion is over

Kerry said that his vote was right for America. End of story.

[Snivi Yllom]

6. sort of like

End of story.

I'm taking my marbles home.

[wtmusic]

7. At issue is his disingenuous claim

to support involvement of the UN.

[Jacobin]

9. Wow. I'm impressed!!

"Right for America", eh. Jeeze, that's good enough for me. Now I understand. Blind faith in your leader is important!! I'm learning to think like a BushBot more and more each day. I'm enjoying it!! It's so easy!!! Just believe me cause I said it!! Wow. No more headaches or sleepless nights!!

/sarcasm

[aquart]

8. Now that's interesting. Mr. Kerry, care to respond?

I don't want another Skull and Bones man. I would favor a constitutional amendment banning them from holding office.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. He was probably "misled" by the notorious truthteller bush.

That seems to be the most likely response from his apologists. Funny how they use stupidity as a defense and then want us to vote for him.

[Snivi Yllom]

16. that's my favorite

But but but I was misled. How could I possibly have seen through such nefarious lies. I can't possibly think for myself.

:nopity:

[blm]

11. Kerry's intent was to support Biden-Lugar bill. Lest you forgot.

.

[wtmusic]

12. Care to address the question?

?

[blm]

47. I did. Kerry intended to vote Biden-Lugar. You liked Dean's stance on B-L

but now you want to judge Kerry on his support of B-L at the time?

Heh

[TLM]

54. Kerry did not vote for BL did he.... so obviously your defense is BS

Kerry was against getting the UN behind action in Iraq and his attacks on Dean prove that.


Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.



Kerry didn't vote to insist on getting the UN behind action in Iraq, and attacked Dean for suggesting we should. Clearly Kerry wanted this war... after all he thinks it was right for america.

[wtmusic]

55. No actually, you didn't

the question was:

Why didn't he support Levin or Byrd?

[redqueen]

13. I'd love to see an explanation for this

I'm still SEETHING.

:mad:

[bigtree]

14. So, Sen. Kerry didn't support the Byrd alternative

But he did support Biden-Lugar, which was apparently favored by anti-war Gov. Dean.

Sen. Kerry no more backed unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation than the majority of Americans did who supported their vote at the time. The vote was not presented as a vote to immediately proceed to war; not even by its most ardent supporters. The decision to drop all diplomatic efforts and invade took place after the inspectors were on the ground and making some progress. Saddam was the only opponent that I can recall that actually was destroying missiles prior to invasion. That was a result of the war resolution, which was backed up the U.N. resolution with the threat of U.S. force.

Bush is the actor in this who took us far beyond the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community. Foisting the blame on those who sought to reign him in is sophistry. Good luck, though.

[wtmusic]

18. Some more sophistry for you

Evasion of the question by lumping him with the 'majority of Americans' or for any other reason does not answer to his evasion of responsiblity.

Care to address the question?

[Jacobin]

21. The etymology of the word sophistry is interesting.

Relates to the Socratic method of questioning to get to the heart of the matter.

Interesting how the word is now used to shut off debate by demeaning the questioner. Reminds me of how the RW works.

[wtmusic]

29. So is the etymology of 'evasion'

:D

[bigtree]

30. I have used the word sophistry to describe the tactic

of portraying Sen. Kerry as pro-war because of his vote on the IWR or the Byrd amendment.

sophistry; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.

[Jacobin]

66. Wasn't talking about the definition, but the etymology

When voting for war is voting for peace, we know 1984 has arrived. You can call it anything you want, but in my book its bullshit

[bigtree]

80. you can't take Sen. Kerry's words or actions to honestly portray him

that he voted for war. The nuances of congressional politics today would make Orwell's head spin. But to take Sen. Kerry's statements and actions and conclude that he supported unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation is a construction that would rival the efforts of the revisionists portrayed in his novel.

[bigtree]

24. He was clear in his aim to remove Saddam from power

with international support. Nothing in the resolution that he ultimately voted for mandated unilateral, preemptive war. The fact that he didn't vote with Sen. Byrd doesn't make Sen Kerry an advocate of unilateral, preemptive war. The authority to commit forces didn't originate with the bill Sen. Kerry voted for.

Given Sen. Kerry's involvement in the uncovering of the network of funding to Saddam's regime, and his efforts to unseat the dictator with the involvement of the international community, a 'no' vote on the final resolution would have been a reversal of his prior convictions. He was consistent. He did not advocate preemptive, unilateral invasion and occupation, no matter how he voted on the Byrd amendment.

[wtmusic]

28. Just not clear in his actions

This is wholly contradictory to Kerry's stated position.

[bigtree]

37. Inspectors back on the ground

A result of the threat implied in the IWR. Almost worked to deflate the conflict. The U.N. needed the U.S. to back up 1441 with the threat of force. The inspectors had been expelled. Saddam had rejected the U.N.'s 1441 which called on him to disarm. Sen. Kerry and others decided that the U.N. needed the threat of force to back their resolution. That's what emerged in the final draft. Not a perfect bill, but far from a mandate to immediately invade. It was Bush who waged war. Not Congress in the passing of the IWR. Nothing in the bill mandated preemptive, unilateral invasion.

[wtmusic]

39. No, nothing mandated it

Just rubber-stamped, approved, OK'd, authorized, and certified it.

[bigtree]

48. not true

sophistry, fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.

"rubber-stamped, approved, OK'd, authorized, certified it"

None of these. His statements on the bill and his statements afterwards don't support unilateral, preemptive war, either.


BTW, the argument that a majority of Americans supported the IWR vote is to point up the fact that they were misled by this administration. Their stance then, and Sen. Kerry's argument's now are remarkably similar. Most Americans won't hold Sen. Kerry to blame for Bush's recklessness any more than they feel that the unilateral, preemptive invasion happened because of their support for ending that dictatorship.

[wtmusic]

52. Whether Senator Kerry believed * is also irrelevant

to why he would not support either of these amendments which would have prevented the war, period.

[Guaranteed]

22. Kerry sures knows about sophistry

After all the talk, he votes for the IWR and against the Byrd amendment.

[Snivi Yllom]

26. Yes but NEITHER passed and Kerry STILL voted for it

If Kerry thought supporting Biden-Lugar was important, why did he vote for the IWR bill w/o the important Biden-Lugar ammendment?

[TLM]

57. I keep hearing folks say that Kerry supported Biden-Lugar...

Yet he did not vote for the BL bill... he voted for the IWR.

[meegbear]

15. Turn about is fair play ...

I have heard that Mr. Dean has said he has been against the war. But when on public record did he first say it? Can you post a link that has a date that has this?

[bigtree]

19. Gov. Dean's statements prior to invasion sound a lot like Sen. Kerry's

Speaker: Mr. Howard Dean
Statement on the President's Decision to Send U.S. Military Troops into War Against Iraq

Date: 03/17/2003

Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past six months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003657&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq
Date: 03/18/2003

I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world. At home, the Administration has given too short shrift to the needs of homeland security, ignoring the advice of their own experts, doing the job on the fly and on the cheap. To this administration, homeland security is a fine political weapon, but not high enough a priority to force a reassessment of their tax cuts to the rich and the special interests.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

[meegbear]

44. And when did the vote take place?

[bigtree]

53. The vote did not mandate war

The vote did not require war.

The vote expressed Congress's desire to hold Saddam accountable with the support of the international community.

The vote was an expression of Congress's desire for restraint and diplomacy.

Sen. Kerry and Gov. Dean both expressed a desire to hold Saddam accountable with the support of the international community.

Gov. Dean did not have the responsibility for the vote, notwithstanding his statements surrounding the vote. He supported a remarkably similar bill which also authorized the use of force after the exhausting of diplomatic means. Fine print seperates the final bill from the one Gov. Dean supported. Nothing in the final IWR mandates or encourages immediate war.

[TLM]

58. The difference is that Dean didn't vote for the IWR.... Kerry did.

If you just look at the words, Kerry and Dean are very similar... but when you look at the actions, Kerry contradicted his words and enabled the war.

Then Kerry rode the fence, being against the war, then saying it was the right decision when Saddam was captured, and then being against it and now saying it was the right choice.

[bigtree]

71. You can flame this

But I believe that Gov. Dean was well aware that he didn't have to vote. So, he constructed an argument that went like this:

-I want to remove Saddam

-I would vote for a bill that would do that as long as there is a provision in it that would require the president to certify that he had done all that he could diplomatically.

-Voting for the final IWR gives Bush carte-blanche to wage war.

-In the end I have to believe Bush although I regret that he won't exercise restraint, and I trust that we will kick Iraqi ass.

Gov. Dean was trapped by his desire to remove Saddam, so all he had left was his opposition to the final IWR. He played that card to the end. The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of daylight between the Saddam removal bill he supported and the final IWR Sen. Kerry voted for. But, he has used the small differences in the bills to make it look like he held a different position on this from Sen. Kerry. Not much difference between the two. Not much daylight, except for the fact that Gov. Dean didn't have the responsibility for the vote. Cheap shot from him, I think, to brand those who had that responsibility, and voted slightly differently than he did, as pro-war.

After the bill he supported failed by a wide margin, did Gov. Dean change his resolve about removing Saddam. Did he fold his cards on that in order to bash his fellow Democrats?

[jpgray]

17. With these changes, we'd still be in Iraq today.

"(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution."

The UN resolution referred to was obtained--UN resolution 1441. How does this change where we'd be right now? It certainly wouldn't have halted authorization, because the requirements are unchanged by this amendment, this is only a change of what the authorization is FOR. While that is helpful, it wouldn't have kept us out of Iraq, because the requirements for war remained the same.

"SEC. 5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes."

Kerry should have supported this amendment, because it helps define what the use of force is for. Unlike the preceding amendment, this one goes beyond window dressing. But again, this does not change the requirements for authorization--it simply defines what the authorization is for. But like Biden/Lugar, here the authorization is more clearly defined, and Kerry should have supported this amendment.

Your premise that we would not be in Iraq today with these changes is patently false. You may try an argument that there would be more of a paper trail of accountability for Bush, but this would NOT have stopped the authorization, because the requirements don't change.

[wtmusic]

20. The requirements do change, and they are obvious

It is an entirely different standard, and Kerry rejected it.

[jpgray]

23. Both amendments aren't even in the requirements section of IWR

Here are those requirements, in their entirety, that are wholly unchanged by either amendment. Notice that many of them were broken by Bush, NOTABLY the "exhaust peaceful means".

(b) CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall--
(1) certify to Congress that--
(A) Iraq is continuing to attempt to obtain conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and carry out ballistic missile programs, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;
(B) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States or United States interests in the region, and provide appropriate documentation thereof;
(C) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678; and
(D) the United States has sought from the United Nations Security Council a thorough and robust resolution expressing its dissatisfaction regarding Iraq's noncompliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687 and 949 and those resolutions specified in subparagraph (C); and
(2) transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan of action that contains, at a minimum--
(A) a commitment that United States engagement in the war against terrorism shall remain the highest priority of the United States Government to the maximum extent possible;
(B) a comprehensive plan for long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq;
(C) a commitment that the United States will take necessary efforts to protect the health, safety, and security of the Iraqi people and existing infrastructure, and safety for all United States allies and interests in the region; and
(D) a plan for the continued stabilization of Afghanistan

Show me EXACTLY what the amendments change concerning the requirements.

[wtmusic]

25. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this

Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes."

[jpgray]

31. I'll try to explain it very carefully to you

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack<....>

This puts limits on what the authority is, and helps define what it is supposed to be used for. This is a smart amendment for that reason, but don't fool yourself into thinking it means something it doesn't.

This does not dictate whether or not the authority is granted. This governs the use of said authority, NOT whether or not it is granted. For that purpose, you have the REQUIREMENTS. Once Bush fulfilled those requirements (or claimed he did), he had authorization to use US troops in Iraq. That's all there is to it, and this amendment doesn't change that, as any lawyer or critical reader can tell you.

Now, this would require Bush to maintain that he was USING the authority in response to a "clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack", which would be politically useful now, but it wouldn't have stopped the invasion. He had few qualms about lying through his teeth concerning the evidence, let alone "certifying" that he had "exhausted all peaceful means".

Understand?

[wtmusic]

35. Actually, bolding does not help your argument

I can understand normal text quite well.

It has nothing to do with Bush 'maintaining' there was a 'clear threat of immminent...'--it has to do with one existing.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

[jpgray]

38. OK, put your money where your mouth is

Let's agree on a lawyer to send this to, and we'll see what he/she thinks the amendments do. I'll wager up to $500 that I am correct on this one, because I have read many a legal brief in my day.

(LOL, and I only bolded to separate my text from the quotes)

[wtmusic]

42. Oh please

A real bet on DU? Shall we use PayPal? (This has to be a first :D)!

I really don't need to bet you. If you can state you position clearly and logically, in a step-by-step fashion, I'm happy to roll over. I won't make it hard.

[jpgray]

46. It's only because I'm really sure about this

I will say all you want about how Kerry should have voted for the second amendment--it is really important because it defines what the authorization is for, whereas in the unlatered IWR, the authorization's purpose can have some nebulous interpretations.

But as far as how it would stop Bush from getting the authorization, I don't see it. So long as he was comfortable with lying about facing an "imminent threat" (his comments prove he was), he still would have met the requirements for the authorization, and therefore he would still invade. Did you read the requirements?

(the president will certify)B) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States or United States interests in the region, and provide appropriate documentation thereof

That is a requirement in the unaltered IWR. He lied there, and he lied about this one:

(the president will certify)(C) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678;

So you see, the "imminent threat" bit WAS a requirement, and Bush still sidestepped it and invaded. Exhausting peaceful means WAS a requirement, and Bush still lied about that one too.

The second amendment would prevent Bush from using the IWR as authorization for further military action, and would require Congress to vote again, but it wouldn't have stopped this first invasion.

If you want to bet on this we can I'm game, but maybe we should do candidate donations? :) If you don't that's fine too, but I am REALLY sure about this one, otherwise I wouldn't have questioned your premise.

[wtmusic]

50. I understand that you're really sure about this

but you're unconvincing about why.

The gist so far seems to be that since Bush lied once, he would lie about everything. The problem is that with the Byrd interpretation Bush's lies are irrelevant. It's not up to Bush to determine what 'an imminent, sudden, and direct attack' is--it's a finding of law, one which would never hold up.

Because Kerry is my #2 man, I'm going to give you a hand up and suggest that there were other reasons not directly related to the text itself he rejected it. But until I see a compelling reason not to, I'm going to have to believe this is damning stuff for the Kerry camp, and will have to be addressed.

[jpgray]

60. Well, I've explained it as well as I can

The IWR required Bush certify an "imminent threat", and we all know what happened anyway. I have trouble believing that the amendment would have held him back by mentioning "imminent threat" again.

The amendment deserved support because it defined the authorization's limits, but I don't see how it could have prevented the initial invasion.

At least people can see both sides of the story here, and decide for themselves. :hi:

[isbister]

45. You're right

there is nothing there that wouldn't have produced the same results.

Would've liked to see what was at the other end of the broken link

[Walt Starr]

27. Why, because he was mislead!

no, ...hold, ...back up one

Because it was the right thing to do for America!

[Snivi Yllom]

32. here is the list

1. I was misled
2. It was the right thing to do for America

next?

3. Millions of antiwar protesters around the world did not really matter.

[bigtree]

41. To hold Saddam accountable

with international support was the aim of the IWR.

It was the right thing to do for America.

Bush exceeded the mandate of Congress and exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam.

I was misled.

Nothing in the legislation mandated unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation.

Millions of antiwar protesters around the world did not really matter. (to Bush)

[sangh0]

34. "most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it"

Howard Dean
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

I guess it's OK when Dean believes Bush*.

[sangh0]

36. we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves ...

"If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

[TLM]

63. More half quotes... why can;t anybody attack Dean with a whole quote?

Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

But there's been this kind of bellicose talk going on for three or four months now about unilateral intervention and all that. I think the American people are confused about this, and I think it could have been very easily stated from the outset: "Here's the problem. Here's the threat. Here's the conditions under which we will go in."

[TLM]

62. Full quotes always show the dishonesty of those attacking Dean.

I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

[maxr4clark]

33. Leave the poor guy alone

...he lost his voice in Iowa. ;)

Lest the anti-War Dean supporters forget, here's what Dean said on 9/13/01: "It's not a matter of punishment, it's got to be a matter of eradication," he said during a news conference. "Our goal should be to eradicate every terrorist on the face of this Earth." (link). Sounds pretty skull-and-bones to me.

[markus]

59. And the problem with "eradicate every terroist" is what precisely?

Hell, this is like eradicating polio. The only question is the means.

At some point, force is required.

The issues here is: did everyone who voted for or supported IWR (and, to a large part Biden-Lugar) capitulate to Bush on Iraq before the war on terror?

It wasn't like Graham wasn't dropping pretty broad hints that Bush's case stunk.

They capitulated for the same reason our media has folded it's tent and become the Official Media of the United States (R), a Great Patriotic Media of which Stalin would be proud: Fear. Not fear of Saddam, but fear of the marketplace. Fear of failure.

This was not leadership. The only leadership shown was by those who voted again IWR (and those who supported Byrd). The rest were basically calculating their political (or media) future.

There position differs from Bush's only by degrees (including Dean's). And I'm a Dean supporter.

[bigtree]

73. Well . . .

They achieved part of the goal of the legislation. The threat of force pushed Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. It was on the basis of their reports that we based our objections to immediate invasion on. Their request for more time had the potential to further forstall war. It was Bush who pushed past us all.

[maxr4clark]

79. Hitler thought he could eradicate his problems along with the German Jews

Poliovirus doesn't have rights; people do. Even terrorists, like Howard Dean so rightly pointed out regarding bin Laden.

Eradicating every terrorist is the wrong goal, especially if the terrorists are Islamist fundamentalists; eradicating means killing in mass numbers means martyrdom means more terrorists. Bringing every terrorist to justice is far better. Islamist fundamentalists get no glory from rotting in prison for sixty years; nor do they get more recruits.

I want a President who understands these things, and thinks about them before he shoots his mouth off.

[TLM]

65. And make surte not to include the DATE of that statement....

September 13, 2001


By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean advocated a swift and severe response Wednesday against those responsible for the catastrophic attacks on the United States a day earlier.

“It’s not a matter of punishment, it’s got to be a matter of eradication,” he said during a news conference. “Our goal should be to eradicate every terrorist on the face of this Earth.”

Dean said he was not optimistic such a goal could be achieved, but insisted that the dangers these terrorists posed to the rest of the world warranted a harsh rebuttal.

“There is no excuse under any circum-stances, any circumstances, to murder civilians,” he said. “These people are mass murderers; some would question their sanity. They must be removed from the face of the Earth. They are too dangerous. ...They must be removed as quickly as possible, as efficiently as possible and effectively as possible.”

[maxr4clark]

78. What part of 9/13/01 did you not understand?

[zulchzulu]

40. Link is broken...as well as assumption that Kerry wanted war

The resolution offered from Levin didn't have enough votes for debate, unlike the Biden-Lugar amendment.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2002/october/100403.html

Snip:
"Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he regretted that “some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support” the Lieberman-McCain-Warner resolution. But he then said he plans to vote for that resolution.

“But approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent or unavoidable. The vote I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only. I will not support a unilateral war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-01.htm

[wtmusic]

43. Try this one

It's the first link at the bottom:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:S60228

[isbister]

49. Or did he?

Kerry claims he supported UN involvement in the decision to go to war.

And the IWR that became law didn't send the President to the UN? Of course it did.

Kerry claims he supported UN involvement in the decision to go to war.

I don't see how what you placed here would've done that.

1st - 1441

2nd - Iraq shot at our planes on a regular basis for years, any one of those would have been enough excuse for bush

bush's gang really hyped up the imminent threat of Iraq. bush claimed his invasion was to protect the US national security from the ongoing threat posed by Iraq.

[TLM]

51. Kerry also bashed Dean for wanting UN support in Iraq...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.




Kerry had Bush's back at every step in the march to war.

[sangh0]

61. Dean called for unilateral war

"If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

[TLM]

67. Not unless certian circumstances were met... which were not met.

Which is why you can never quote a whole quote... just cherry picked lines.

Because in the interview, just before the line you quote, Dean had said:

Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

Foreign policy in this country is dependent on us working with other countries. And I think the president got off on the wrong foot when he was simply talking about "Let's go in there, we don't care what anybody else thinks, we're going to do it."

I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction.




So you were saying about Dean calling for unilateral war?

[Ficus]

75. there is a difference between UN support

and a UN veto of all security decisions.

[kerrygoddess]

56. Kerry voted in favor of the Byrd Ammendment

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended )
Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 09:43 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4869 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq )
Statement of Purpose: To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.
Vote Counts: YEAs 31 NAYs 66 Not Voting 3

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Helms (R-NC), Not Voting
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Not Voting
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Not Voting
Miller (D-GA), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-NH), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thompson (R-TN), Nay
Thurmond (R-SC), Nay
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

[jpgray]

64. No, wtmusic is right

I am pretty pissed off that I carefully researched and even admitted an error for Kerry when he SUPPORTED the flipping amendment!

edit: Unless it's a different amendment, hold on a sec while I check.

2nd edit: No, that was a different Byrd amendment dealing with an expiration date for the authorizaton. If Kerry supported that one, I can't imagine why he wouldn't support the other. The time limit accomplishes much of what the other Byrd amendment does--limit the authorization.

[TLM]

69. Wrong one....

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4868 )
Vote Number: 234 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 12:50 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4868 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq )

Statement of Purpose: To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 14 NAYs 86
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carnahan (D-MO), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Helms (R-NC), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchinson (R-AR), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-NH), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thompson (R-TN), Nay
Thurmond (R-SC), Nay
Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[DoveTurnedHawk]

68. Who Cares?

IWR should not be a litmus test.

DTH

[TLM]

72. Yes it should....

They were not standing up to Bush when it counted most... and for that they should not expect us to stand up and support them.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

74. So Don't Support Him Then (eom)

DTH

[Cheswick2.0]

70. yup blank check

He was afraid of being called weak on national security. Who cares about the expense or the death and suffering.

[bigtree]

76. The blank check didn't originate with the IWR

The president had the same authority to commit our forces that presidents had used for decades without congressional authorization.
The blank check which Sen. Byrd and others argued against - and which Sen. Byrd has fought against - is the refusal of generations of presidents to invoke the War Powers Act. Nothing in the legislation mandated immediate war. Nothing, save the will of Congress to enforce the War Powers Act, as Sen. Byrd argued, would have prevented the president from committing forces.

[bigtree]

77. "Who cares about the expense or the death and suffering.?"

Sen. Kerry does. One-dimensional arguments against him can't change that. At the time of the vote, Se. Kerry was in a fight for his life. I find the attacks on his patriotism and on his concern for the safety and well-being of all Americans shallow and unbelievable. I think most Americans will recognize the ambivalence of Sen. Kerry and others in voting for the IWR as a reflection to their ambivalent support for the legislation at the time.

[Guaranteed]

81. kick nt