A question for Kerry supporters on his IWR vote

[MadHound]

If you folks are giving Kerry a pass on his yes vote concerning the IWR, then by extension don't you have to give a pass to all of the people who voted yes on the IWR? The excuses that Kerry is currently using, "I was lied to" and "I was voting for a process", are equally applicable to all of the members of Congress who voted yes. So I guess we're not going to hold any Congressman resbonsible for their IWR now eh? Or is there something I'm missing here?

[KC21304]

1. Depends what they said before and what they said after.

If they say it is good we went in, admit they were lied too but think things are going swell I would tend to see them a little bit differently than Kerry.

[Monte Carlo]

2. I don't think so.

If you'll slow down for a second with the Spanish Inquisition, I think there was a whole world of context that gave the IWR vote its meaning, because interpretation means everything in law. Each Senators' reasons for voting one way or another are not interchangeable.

[MadHound]

4. So then how can we honestly cherry pick, after the fact

Which Congressmen to forgive and which to punish? Is it simply a matter of which party? Many of the Congressmen who voted for the war, both 'Pugs and Dems are now saying the same thing that Kerry is. Do we give them a pass? And how, if we're going to try and take things in context, do we know what that context was? Sorry, but I'm having a difficult time excusing ANY member of Congress for enabling Bushco's war of oil and empire.

[mobuto]

5. Kerry's position has been consistent

He was never in favor of war. If you read what he's said all along, that becomes clear.

[MadHound]

8. Now how can I(or you) swallow that one

When Kerry has stated he was ". . .for war as a last resort"? After all, it doesn't matter if you want war as a first option, or a last option, you still want war, this is Logic 101. And apparently Kerry did want war, given that he did vote for the IWR. And since, in the past several months, people have raised a great cry against the people who voted for the IWR, why are we giving Kerry a pass? Inquiring minds want to know.

[emulatorloo]

10. Logic 101 will tell you that

War as a *first* resort is not the same as War as the *last thing* after *all else has failed.*

Unless your underlying assumption is that war is *never* justified. In which case you need to state that up front.

[MadHound]

12. No, though I am a pacifist, I can see the need for war,

At least in reagards to self defense. However this was certainly not a war of self defense, no matter what Bush and Blair were saying about forty five minutes to attack.

And being for war as a first resort differs from war as the last resort is still being for war, it is simply a matter of time frame and actions taken.

[mobuto]

21. I still don't understand

Facts remain:

1. Kerry opposed fighting the war that we fought.

2. Were Kerry President, we would not have invaded Iraq.

3. There were legitimate gripes with Saddam and the US was perfectly justified in treating his regime harshly. The threat of force is necessary for diplomacy to work and Kerry understood that.

[MadHound]

23. Quite frankly, neither do I, that 's why I'm asking questions

1. If Kerry opposed this war, why did he give Bush the green light by voting for the IWR? Why didn't he instead try to kill it with procedural moves and the power of the bully pulpit?

2. You, nor I know what Kerry would have done. Just because somebody is a Dem doesn't mean they won't go to war, after all we have the LBJ, Gulf of Tonkin example.

3. Yes, their were legitimate gripes with Saddam. Same sort of gripes we have with numerous other rulers aroung the globe. Does this justify invading a country pre-emptively? Does this justify killing thousands of innocents? And Saddam and Iraq were being treated harshly. Sanctions for the preceding twelve years had killed 500,000 plus innocent Iraqis and decimated the country's infrastructure. What, you don't think that was harsh enough?

[sangha]

26. I disagree with #2

I think that, based on Kerry's "Do not rush to war" speech, that Kerry would not rush to war. I realize this is a controversial position, but there it is.

Granted, no one can know for sure what would have been. However, there is no reason to believe that Kerry would do anything other than what he's been saying he wanted to do, and saying for many years:

War as a last resort. Unless you think the invasion of Iraq was "a last resort", the only reasonable conclusion is that Kerry would not have invaded. This is further supported by the fact that Saddam was allowing inspectors and was pleading (secretly through intermediaries) with the US to not invade and promising to allow expanded inspections including the stationing of US troops in Iraq to accompany the UN inspectors.

[MadHound]

30. No, war with Iraq wasn't the "last resort"

And Kerry knew it. If he was truly against the war, then block the resolution with procedural manuevers(god know the 'Pugs did enough of the successfully in the ninties) and use the power of the bully pulpit. This would've delayed matters enough so that the inspectors could have come back empty handed and then public opinion would be squarely against Bush(after all, the majority of people didn't want a pre-emptive, unilateral war, and they wanted the time for the inspectors to finish). If you don't want war, you don't believe the promises of the the mongerer, and you don't enable him by voting for a war resolution. It is that simple.

Also, if Kerry is so against the war, why is he saying that he will continue the imperial occupation if elected? Doesn't sound very dovish to me. It sounds like another damn Vietnam, a war driven by politics and empire, a nice bipartisan effort since nobody wanted to look dovish. Do you really think we need to go through that again?

[sangha]

31. Repititious begging the question

You keep repeating that a vote for IWR is a vote for war and when someone debates that, your response is "If you're against the war, you vote against IWR". That doesn't support your position. It only repeats it.

You also continue to repeat that Kerry, or some other Dem, should have blocked it. However, I have posted how IWR had the 51 votes it needed to pass from the moment it was submitted to the Senate. Your response: "They should have blocked" without ever explaining how that could be possible when 51 Senators supported it.

Also, if Kerry is so against the war, why is he saying that he will continue the imperial occupation if elected?

Because we are there.

Doesn't sound very dovish to me.

LOL! Who claimed Kerry is a dove? Kerry does not oppose war, and he doesn't even oppose the occupation. He opposed and continues to oppose the invasion.

[MadHound]

33. I keep repeating points because I keep getting the same questions

And then you come along and BOOM make one for me, to wit: "Kerry does not oppose war, and he doesn't even oppose the occupation." And it is obvious that Kerry was for the invasion, his name is in the YES column of the IWR.

And if you don't think that one man can block the Congress, then I guess you haven't heard of Rober Byrd have you? All we needed was time for the inspectors. But Kerry and others wussed out and we didn't get it.

And yes, we are there. Continuing an illegal, immoral imperial occupation. Nice to see that 'Pugs and Dems can be bipartisan about something, even though it is the ongoing continued bloodshed of innocents:eyes:

[sangha]

35. That's just not true

I have pointed out that IWR had 51 votes in the Senate from the moment it was submitted. No one else has argued this, and you have yet to respond to it. But it hasn't stopped you from repeating the false assertion that the Dems could have "tied up" IWR.

to wit: "Kerry does not oppose war, and he doesn't even oppose the occupation."

You have left out the parts that support my claim. Furthermore, that was in response to another of your false implications: That someone argued that Kerry is a dove.

And it is obvious that Kerry was for the invasion, his name is in the YES column of the IWR.

And again you just "beg the question" of "Is a vote for IWR a vote for war" by repeating "A vote for IWR is a vote for war". It's a response, but it's not an argument or evidence. It's nothing more than an assertion that you have yet to support.

And if you don't think that one man can block the Congress, then I guess you haven't heard of Rober Byrd have you? All we needed was time for the inspectors. But Kerry and others wussed out and we didn't get it.

Sen Robert Byrd stopped IWR? In which dimension

BTW, Joint Resolutions can NOT be filibustered.

And yes, we are there. Continuing an illegal, immoral imperial occupation. Nice to see that 'Pugs and Dems can be bipartisan about something, even though it is the ongoing continued bloodshed of innocents

Abandoning your point? No one has denied that Kerry opposed the occupation. The dispute, which you initiated, is whether Kerry is/was "for war"

[MadHound]

37. Sure it is, but some folks don't wish to face the truth

"I have pointed out that IWR had 51 votes in the Senate from the moment it was submitted. No one else has argued this, and you have yet to respond to it. But it hasn't stopped you from repeating the false assertion that the Dems could have "tied up" IWR."
I'll repeat myself, though it is obvious that you have read my previous answers. It doesn't matter(unless you are being politically expediant, which is I suspect the real answer) how many are for or against ANY particular bill. You can still tie said bill up for great lengths of time, if not outright kill it through various procedural manuevers. Robert Byrd is just the most recent example of this, and if we look at the Clinton administration we see the 'Pugs doing this very thing, successfully, time and again. All that was needed was TIME! Time for the inspectors to come up empty handed, upon which public opinion(which was solidly against a unilateral, pre-emptive war, and solidly for letting the inspectors complete their job) would have gone against Bush. Bush, being another politically expediant animal, would have seen that continuing on his path to war would have risked his reelection, if not outright impeachment, would have backed down. And if he didn't, Kerry and others could have used that as an effective club to brain Bushco in this election. As it is now, the Dems who voted for the IWR are reduced to waffling and doublespeak to try and cover up the FACT that they enabled this war.

"And again you just "beg the question" of "Is a vote for IWR a vote for war" by repeating "A vote for IWR is a vote for war". It's a response, but it's not an argument or evidence. It's nothing more than an assertion that you have yet to support."
How else would you have me respond? A vote for the IWR is a vote for war. You knew that, I knew that, millions at home and abroad knew that. Are you implying that Kerry didn't know that? If so, then the man is frankly to stupid or gullible to be given the highest office in the land, much less the job he holds now.

And know, Byrd didn't stop the war, stop being faceatious. And while Kerry might not have been able to fillibuster, there are other procedural moves which he could have used, plus the power of the bully pulpit. 'Pugs did this time and again during the Clinton years, why couldn't the Dems? All that was needed was for somebody to buy time to allow the inspectors to come back empty handed, just time. But instead of buying that time, Kerry just added his rubberstamp.

And no, I'm not abandoning my point, in fact you are proving it masterfully. The point being that it is hypocritical to absolve one person of blame in a matter, while still criticising others for the same action. You have blasted both 'Pugs and Dems for enabling Bush via the IWR, yet here you are defending Kerry vis-a-vis the self same enabling. See the point now?:think:

[sangha]

43. More "begging the question"

I'll repeat myself, though it is obvious that you have read my previous answers. It doesn't matter(unless you are being politically expediant, which is I suspect the real answer) how many are for or against ANY particular bill. You can still tie said bill up for great lengths of time, if not outright kill it through various procedural manuevers

Again, Joint Resolutions are not subject to a filibuster, and the "various procedural manuevers" (which go unspecified by you) are voted on by the Senate, and with 51 votes, they would be quickly defeated. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for debate or maneuver because IWR wasn't subject to amendment on the floor of the Senate.

Robert Byrd is just the most recent example of this

More of your repetition with nothing to back it up. Last time I looked, Byrd did not defeat IWR. Why not?

if we look at the Clinton administration we see the 'Pugs doing this very thing, successfully, time and again.

I challenge you to name one Joint Resolution that the Repukes tied up when Clinton was President.

All that was needed was TIME!

And that's exavtly what they didn't have because 51 Senators were ready to vote for it, and if the Dems even tried to delay, instead of negotiate, the Repukes would bring it to the floor and passed it.

How else would you have me respond?

With an argument, and not just a repetitious assertion.

And know, Byrd didn't stop the war, stop being faceatious

He didn't? Why not? After all, even though you won't describe any of these "various procedural maneuvers", they must exist (or else you wouldn't refer to them) and since Byrd was not "pro war" I can't see why Byrd would not make use of them. Unless of course, they don't really exist.

Prove they exist and describe just one of these "various procedural maneuvers"

there are other procedural moves which he could have used

So then describe one of them.

'Pugs did this time and again during the Clinton years, why couldn't the Dems?

Again, I challenge you to name one Joint Resolution that the Repukes tied up when Clinton was President.

The point being that it is hypocritical to absolve one person of blame in a matter, while still criticising others for the same action.

You condemn Kerry for not "tying up" IWR, but you praise Byrd even though he didn't tie it up either

[MadHound]

46. Speaking of repeating oneself, look in the mirror

Look Sang, I've answered all of your questions and then some. You insist on putting words in my mouth, and quoting statements that I didn't make. Apparently the only reason you are doing this is because you have no better defense. Well, that is your problem, not mine. If you wish to continue to chase your tail on this issue, fine, do it on your own time. Don't bother me with it. This is a very common practice of yours, one you resort to when you don't have a damn thing to back your ass up with. I'm not going to waste my time doing your research, that is your job. When you have something constructive, get back to me. Until then, goodbye.

[sangha]

47. You haven't answered any of my questions

You have responded, but not answered. For one, you claim various provedural maneuvers, but you have yet to list any that were applicable to IWR

You have claimed that Kerry or some other Dem could have "tied up" IWr without explaining how (back to those pesky "various procedural maneuvers")

You haven't indicated which Joint Resolution the Repukes "tied up" while Clinton was President.

I could go on, but I'd be surprised if you could answer those three.

[Hav]

16. This isn't Logic 101

First, I believe to understand what you want to say. I disagree though.
I think you could have voted for that without being pro-war.
And I think it is also wrong to say that "apparently Kerry did want war" because of this vote.
And yes, there is a huge difference between war as last resort and war as first option. There is a difference between war-mongering and the fact that you have to acknowledge that there might be the time you can't prevent engaging in a war. This doesn't apply to Iraq in my opinion but it applies to historical events where the engagement in a war because the war was brought to you and not because one liked the idea of war so much.
Voting for war as last resort does not equal that you want war just because it left the option for war. What it means for me though is, that you can despite war as much as you like, there might be someone who threatens you and your country and who won't leave you any other option.
Maybe for you that sounds strange but I really mean it that way.There is a very thin line.
When your country is attacked and you would defend it, it wouldn't mean that you want war.


I think because of how Kerry explained his vote before and also after the vote (before is important here,as it shows how he always felt about it and he never wanted Bush to rush to war) is the reason why some can understand his decision while not generally agreeing with the reasoning of everybody who voted for the IWR.

[MadHound]

24. Sure it is, it is the spin that I hear around here that is illogical

One cannot be against war, and yet still give it the green light. That ranks right up there with other hypocrisies, like fighting for peace, or fucking for chastity. It simply doesn't make sense.

And if Kerry didn't want war, why did he give war the green light by voting for the IWR? If he was against it he should have voted against the IWR, and try to kill it with various procedural manuevers and the power of the bully pulpit ala Senator Byrd. Gee, if enough people who were against the war actually voted and worked against it, maybe we wouldn't have gone.

And if Kerry was for war only as a last resort, why did he give Bushco the green light to wage it so soon? He could have tied up the IWR for months, giving the inspectors time to finish their job. When the inspectors found nothing, the public would have come solidly down in the no war camp and Bush would have been screwed. But no, Kerry just went along to get along and thousands have died because of it.

And I've read Kerry's multiple explanations for his vote, and they sound damning in my ears. Either we go with the "Bush lied to me explanation" which means that Kerry is stupid and easily fooled(after all, millions of people both in the US and around the world didn't buy Bush's story). Or we go with the "voting for a process" explanation" meaning that Kerry voted yes out of political expediancy, meaning that he is willing to bend whichever way the wind blows. Neither explanation leaves Kerry looking like a man fit for the highest office in the land.

[sangha]

27. No, it's not

You repeatedly insist that a vote for IWR means giving a green light to an invasion. You couldn't be more wrong. In speech after speech, Kerry has said that it was the War Powers Act which allows the CINC (ie POTUS) to initiate military actions WITHOUT any "green light" from Congress.

He could have tied up the IWR for months

Did you forget that on the day Bush* published his version of IWR, 49 Republicans Senators, and two Dems (Lieberman and Zell Miller) announced that they would vote for it, giving IWR the 51 votes it needed to pass?

Given those #'s, it would have been absolutely impossible for the Dems to tie it up. Not even for a day

[MadHound]

32. And then we have the example of one man

Robert Byrd, who single handedly managed to tie up various pieces of legislation for days and weeks at a time. ONE MAN! Sorry, but with those kind of manuevers, the minority Dems could have tied up the IWR long enough for the inspectors to come back empty handed. No WMDS would have insured that public opinion would have been squarely against Bush and we would have had no war.

And even if that hadn't been the scenario, at least resist to the best of your ability! Damn, messages to the Congressional members were running 280 to 1 against the IWR. Poll after poll showed a majority of people didn't want a pre-emptive, unilateral war, and that they wanted the inspectors to complete their job. What is so damn hard about doing the job you were hired to do and represent your constituents? That is after all Kerry's sworn oath. Do we really want a man who forsakes his sworn oath so easily in the highest office in the land?

So answer me this. If the IWR wasn't a green light for war, what was it? Millions of people worldwide and in the US knew exactly that that is what the IWR was. Is Kerry so stupid that he doesn't recognize that? If so, then he is too stupid to be in office. And you had better reread your Constitution, the only branch that can declare a war is the Congressional one. The Executive Branch can only call out the troops in case of defense or national emergency. The Iraq situation was clearly a case of neither.

[sangha]

36. Byrd "tied up" IWR?

In which dimension? In real life, IWR was NOT tied up, and it passed. In real life, Joint Resolutions can NOT be filibustered, even if "various pieces of legislation" can.

[MadHound]

39. Don't put words in my mouth

I never said that Byrd tied up the IWR, just that he tied up various pieces of legislation. Furthermore, the 'Pugs did the same time and again during the Clinton years.

And yes, legislation can be tied up. Voting delays, no quorum, riders, offensive amendments, funding discussions, the list goes on. Apparently the Dems in Congress learned nothing from the Clinton years.

[sangha]

45. Why didn't Byrd "tie up" IWR? Is he "pro-war"?

How could Byrd, or Kerry, tie up IWR, and please, be specific? Your claim that there are "various procedural maneuvers" is weakened by inability to describe just one of them.

And yes, legislation can be tied up.

Not "legislation" IWR was a Joint Resolution. The rules are different.

Voting delays

When the Senate votes is subject to a vote of the Senators. Since 51 were voting FOR IWR, I doubt that would have voted to help the opposition "tie it up"

no quorum

There was a quorum. You can't delay a vote on the basis of there being no quorum when there was a quorum.

riders, offensive amendments

Senate rules prohibitted riders and amendments

funding discussions

IWR had no funding to discuss.

the list goes on

None of them apply to IWR.

[Hav]

38. Well maybe it is Logic 101

but using Logic 101 to simplify things to make your point isn't helpful.
Your argument is that Kerry's vote, or the vote on the IWR, gave Bush the needed authority to conduct the situation and the war like Bush did or that Bush couldn't have gone to war at all without that vote. That is simply a wrong perception of the whole matter and a wrong understanding of the IWR.
There is no hypocrisy or spin in my post.The spin is on your part.
You want to spin the IWR and Kerry's reasoning for your case.

And just because millions were marching on the street didn't mean that they were automatically right or the the truth was obvious because of them protesting.


I found Wisemen's post again who presented Kerry's remark:

Kerry opposed war, before the Vote, during the Vote, and after the vote. For many in congress the IWR vote brought Bush back from the brink of war into a U.N. process. John’s position was no different than that of the French, German, Syrian …. Ambassadors who voted for resolution 1441, but opposed Bush’s rush to war. Kerry has not modified his position during the campaign to pander for votes. He has been consistent.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the IWR vote
TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
…..

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

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

. . . . . . . . .

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.

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

After the IWR vote, During U.N. Inspections
Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003


"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"


………

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!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm


(more here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=362388)

[MadHound]

42. Hav, you may not be spinning things,

But certainly Kerry is, as are a lot of his supporters. The hypocrisy of the matter is what is disturbing. If Kerry was opposed before, during and after the war, why did he vote for the IWR? It was and is a blank check for Bush to invade. Here is the relevant part:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in
order to

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

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

And you can find the rest here: <http://k7moa.uh.edu/iraq_Resolution.htm>

And as far as forcing Bush to go through a set of steps, go look at the resolution. All it required Bush to do is report back to Congress forty eight hours after invasion to tell the Congress that diplomacy failed. You are correct, the overwhelming masses may not always be correct, but in this case they certainly were. A few brave souls in Congress were smart enough to realize this, why wasn't Kerry?

I'm sorry, but all of this spin and bluster on the part of Kerry and his supporters is just a smoke screen to cover one of two facts: To wit he was either too stupid or gullible to realize what he was voting on(in which case he is unfit to be in office). Or that he was voting out of political expediancy, having a Presidential run in the back of his mind and not wishing to appear too dovish(in which case he morally doesn't deserve office). Either case isn't a good one for Kerry. Besides, opponents of the war, Kerry supporters included, have taken other Congressmen to task for how they voted, why not Kerry?

[MadHound]

13. Then why did he vote for the IWR?

Why is he saying that he will continue to occupy Iraq if elected? Sorry, but if a person is not for war, then a person votes AGAINST THE WAR RESOLUTION!

[mobuto]

22. Why?

1. Because the President needed to have the threat of force behind him for diplomacy to work. It turned out that the President wasn't interested in diplomacy. But that's not Kerry's fault.

2. Even Howard Dean says we should continue to occupy Iraq. To pull out now, before setting up a functioning government, would be to condemn an entire generation of Iraqis to civil war and genocide.

Sorry, but if a person is not for war, then a person votes AGAINST THE WAR RESOLUTION!

I'm sorry, that's not necessarily true. Read what Kerry said at the time - he did not support an invasion.

[MadHound]

25. Yes, why!

1. Like we didn't have enough threat of force in the area already. Like we hadn't shown Hussein how mighty we were for the proceding twelve years, when we killed 500,000 Iraqi civilians and laid waste to the Iraqi infrastucture? Besides, inspectors were getting in, and Hussein was cooperating

2. And Howard Dean should be condemned for that also. The only Dem candidate who is making any sense(and the correct decision) in this matter is Dennis Kucinich, who wants us to pull out completely, turn it over to the UN and pay for all of the reparations. Anything less is simply imperial occupation.

3. I've read what Kerry has said regarding his vote, and it all rings hollow. His statements boil down to two premises:
1. He was fooled by Bush. Well if that's the case, then quite frankly he is either too gullible or too stupid to hold the hightest office in the land. 2. He was voting for a process. In other words, he was going along to get along. Anybody who is so spineless and oppurtunistic doesn't deserve the Presidentcy either. What he should of done is pull a Robert Byrd, use procedural moves and the power of the bully pulpit to at least hold up the IWR for a few weeks and months. Then the inspectors could have finished their job, come up empty handed, and then the whole weight of US public opinion would have been against Bush. Sorry, but Kerry took the politically expediant way out. After all, I'm sure he had some sort of idea that he was going to run, and probably didn't want to look dovish.

[Monte Carlo]

6. Then I'd say you are running out of friends.

I'd like to tell you its all about right over wrong, and that we should ignore party affiliation, but you can't be neutral on a moving train. We're going to have to pick a side and live with it.

[MadHound]

9. But it seems that a lot of people

Want to have their cake and eat it too, ie the Congressional passage of the IWR was wrong, and we should hold those who voted for it accountable. That is until the subject of Kerry is broached, and then it becomes excuse central. You're correct, sides on this matter must be chosen, but unfortuneately too many wish to waffle.

[polmaven]

7. Because Kerry is saying now

EXACTLY what he said at the time the vote was taken.


edited to add link:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[MadHound]

11. In other words, he is still for the war

Even though he was voting out of stupidity(after all, there were several agencies and people stating conclusively that Iraq had no WMD) or political expediancy, knowing he a presidential race coming up and couldn't afford to look dovish. Sorry, but neither reason flies with me, in fact stupidity or oppurtunism are both reasons for me NOT to vote for Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

14. sadly, you are mistaken - but don't vote for him if you don't want to

Your premises don't have much to do w reality, and JK was clear on his vote from day one that war was to be a last resort after un pressure inspectors allies etc etc etc etc. Promises were made that this would be the case. Those promises were broken.

[MadHound]

28. First resort, last resort, it doesn't matter, it is still resorting to war

And quite frankly if Kerry believed in Bushco's promises, then he is either too gullible or too stupid to be president. I mean, after all millions of people both here and abroad saw through Buschco's promises, why couldn't Kerry. If Kerry was truly against the war, then he should have use the power of procedural manuevers and the bully pulpit. Instead he took the cowards way out and went along to get along.

And the only premise around here that doesn't have much to do with reality is the premise that somehow Kerry is anti-war while voting for it and continuing to advocate for our continued imperial occupation. It makes about as much sense as Nixon did, saying he was the candidate for peace while continuing to illegaly bomb the bejesus out of Cambodia. Didn't fly then, doesn't fly now.

[blm]

58. But support for Biden-Lugar was OK with you

so, if you'd give a candidate who supported Biden-Lugar a pass, then why not IWR? Both had the same essential guidelines with war as a last resort. Forgive one, it only stands to reason you'd forgive the other.

[onehandle]

3. Bush was going to get his war no matter what...

Period.

We have Democrats to elect.

[mrgorth]

15. Ham sandwich.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

52. Very original

Haven't heard that one

[Forkboy]

17. Fool...you're obviously not nuanced enough to understand!

;-)

[MadHound]

19. LOL

Darn those straighforward, simple questions. Next time I must add nuance. :bounce:

[sangha]

18. Your missing something here

You seem to be assuming that there was only one reason to vote "yes" and one reason to vote "no". I can support or oppose someone's support for IWR and I can consider the reasons WHY they voted as they did and not just HOW they voted.

[dionysus]

20. Shhhhh! You can't say that!

Otherwise, you might expose GLARING hypocrisy. :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Politcal expediency wins the day over conscience.

Doing the right thing is only applicable when it doesn't threaten a cheap politicians prospects.

20,000 plus dead people don't vote so who cares? After all, winning the election is everything.

"Oh well, Bush was going to war anyway." Democrat apologists.

"Oh well, Hitler was going to go to war anyway." German apologists.

[MadHound]

34. Hear hear!

Nothing like a fine bipartisan effort when it comes to shedding innocent blood!

[bigtree]

40. 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 sucks, 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. The only way to direct him is through some sort of resolution. Remember, we were outraged by his plans but the majority of Americans didn't make much of a fuss. We had lost the PR battle before the vote.

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.

Your flogging around of the deaths is disgusting. You don't hold a lock on morality with your view and neither do I. You make no credible connection between the IWR vote and Bush's unilateral, preemptive end run around Congress. Therefore, your attempt to place blame on those in Congress who sought to restrain Bush through the resolution falls well short of any acquiescence on their part in his committing of our forces to war.

[MadHound]

48. Once again, spin and excuses.

Here is the resolution: <http://k7moa.uh.edu/iraq_Resolution.htm>
Show me anything in this resolution that puts any real restraints on Bush's rush to war? There are none, it is a blank check for invasion, with mere lip service being paid to the UN and Congress. And while we had a determined president, hell bent on war, apparently we had a limp Congress, willing to bend over for war. Why no outcry? Why no stall tactics? Why no use of the bully pulpit? My God, you had a majority of the people in this country unwilling to go to war unilaterally, pre-emptively, and before the inspectors completed their job! The members of Congress could have used this to great advantage, yet they simply folded. With the messages to Congress on the IWR running 280 to 1 against the resolution, is it too damn much to ask that OUR represantives do their damn job and represent their constituency? Sheesh!

And you don't need a majority to put the keebosh on a resolution in Congress. All you need is a few determined people to do the right thing. Didn't we learn anything from the 'Pugs in the Clinton years?

And you may find my "flogging around of the deaths" disgusting, oh well. What I find disgusting is a group of candidates enabling the actual deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents, yet unwilling to acknowledge their part in this massacre. That my friend is disgusting.

[sangha]

49. What stall tactics?

You continually claim that the Dems could have stalled, but have yet to describe one tactic they could have used to stall IWR.

Why no use of the bully pulpit? My God, you had a majority of the people in this country unwilling to go to war unilaterally, pre-emptively, and before the inspectors completed their job

Then why did polls that were taken AFTER we went to war unilaterally, pre-emptively and before the inspectors complete their job show that the majority of Americans supported the invasion?

And you don't need a majority to put the keebosh on a resolution in Congress. All you need is a few determined people to do the right thing. Didn't we learn anything from the 'Pugs in the Clinton years?

Again, please name one Joint Resolution the Repukes blocked during the Clinton Presidency?

[bigtree]

50. Kerry intended to forestall and avert war with his vote.

Nothing that the Democratic minority could have done would have stopped Bush from his peconcieved invasion, short of a revision in the War Powers Act, as evidenced by his end-run around the U.N., Congress, and the American people in his rush to invade.

[MadHound]

54. What kind of answer is that?

"Kerry intended to forestall and avert war with his vote." Voting for war to achieve peace, is that the current spin? Sheesh, that one ranks right up there with "fucking for chastity" as one of the most bizarre oxymorons ever. And rank is the operative word. How is voting Yes on a resolution to enable war going to avert war. Sorry, but that is some pretty bizarre logic you're are using there friend.

[bigtree]

55. No, Kerry didn't vote for war. Military action does not have to mean war.

Most observers, pro-IWR and anti-IWR alike, reserved the military option and asserted that the U.N. needed the U.S. threat of force to get Saddam to allow inspections again. Most felt that if Saddam didn't comply then military action would be needed.

[sangha]

56. Did the UN vote for war?

They passed resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Was the UN "pro-war"?

[JHBowden]

41. BUSH is responsible.

That is the "something" you are missing.

[MadHound]

44. No, I've never missed that fact

The trouble is that Bush was enabled by a lapdog Congress populated by spineless Dems. Those of us who are against the war hold Bush primarily responsible for his actions. Yet we also take to task the Congressmen who enabled him(just go check the archives). And yet all of the sudden it is "hands off" when it comes to presidential candidates? I find it disturbing and hypocritical that people are willing to give a pass to somebody just because they are Dems who are running for president. It allows an illegal and immoral war to become a bipartisan quagmire that extends for years and costs us dearly, both monetarily and in lives. If we are going to take pro war Congressmen to task for their enabling vote, then let us not stop when one of those Congressmen runs for office. In fact we should hold a presidential candidate to a stricter standard, not a lax one.

[InhaleToTheChief]

51. While I admire your idealism...

We will be faced with a choice this November:

a. vote for the man who was going to have this war one way or another, who brought the idea of the war to the table in the first place, and convinced a frightened populace that a war was necessary when just a few months earlier, hardly anyone in America wanted to invade Iraq.

b. vote for a man who voted for IWR, whose intentions may be somewhat unclear, but who was certainly not the champion behind the war effort as (a.) was

c. vote idealistically...for someone who never had a chance to vote on IWR but swears they would not have, thus making (a.) far more likely to win.

As I say, I admire your ideals. But what exactly is your point, talking about giving them a pass?? I don't give John Kerry a pass, but I will certainly vote for him over Bush. If you really feel that the right thing to do is to not vote for Kerry, then I think your idealism has dangerously clouded your vision. If Governor Bush wins his first election to the presidency in November, there will surely be far more new wars than if Kerry wins...which in the end is what you are opposed to.

Idealism is great, but don't let it get in the way of pragmatism this year.

[MadHound]

57. Yes, we will be faced with a choice

Four more years of the same ol' same ol', or starting to work on getting the corporate corruption out of our government. On the one hand we have Bush. Yes, the man is evil, and I cannot disagree with the points you bring up regarding him. We also have(apparently) Kerry, a man who enabled the rush to war to proceed forward, who has stated that he will continue the occupation, and who is firmly in the back pocket of big business. While a Kerry administration might slow down the speed with which this country is approaching the cliff edge, he is certainly not going to do a damn thing to change direction.

On the other hand we can get behind a party which isn't, and never will be beholden to corporate interests, and who has been instrumental in organizing the opposition to this illegal and immoral war. While I grant you, it will be ugly in the short term, in the long term the benefits will be great. Having lived through Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I, I am not moved by the boogeyman arguements that are made around here. Yes, a second Bush term would be ugly, but it won't be the end of the world, much less this country. What will be the end of this country is if we the people continue to settle for "the lesser of two evils" in our government. Clinton proved to us that a Democrat can rule like a good Republican, the Congressional Dems have proven over the past three years that a Congressional Dem can vote on issues like a good Republican. How much more do you need to realize that we are living in the Second Gilded Age, when your party affiliation doesn't matter, just which corporation bought your soul?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. I think there is a big difference between a guy that makes a bad choice

or feels BOXED into the choice he made (Kerry) and a guy that was PRO-WAR ala Lieberman...I know you don't so dialogue on the matter is all but impossible. I won't even try anymore.