On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy

[Excelsyor]

The issue of Kerry and the Iraq War has come up recently as he tells Putin to stop invading other countries. Those who defend John Kerry's vote in 2002 for the authorization to invade Iraq argue the following:

That Kerry really disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because Kerry wanted diplomacy first.

But this argument falls flat when we see what Kerry said in a debate during Howard Dean two months after the invasion (May, 2003), even after stating in the same sentence he thought diplomacy was important:

"KERRY: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dems_Columbia_SC_John_Kerry.htm

Kerry apologists pretend that his position was something like, (WTF, Bush, I told you to use diplomacy and you didn't! I do not like the fact that you invaded Iraq you impulsive impatient you!"

But Kerry supported the invasion. His desire for diplomacy did not cause him to withdraw support for it.

Kerry screwd up big time.

It is no wonder that independent fact-checkers have rejected Kerry's revisionist attempt to wash his hands.


http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/john-kerry/secretary-state-john-kerry-says-senator-he-opposed/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/10/kerrys-claim-that-he-opposed-bushs-invasion-of-iraq/

[elleng]

1. They ALL (virtually) 'supported' the decision,

which is why I supported Wes Clark.

[Scuba]

23. And why I worked on Russ Feingold's campaign. He was the ONLY US Senator to vote "no".

[dsc]

83. No he wasn't

Kennedy voted no, Byrd voted no, in point of fact a majority of Democratic Senators voted no.

[Scuba]

86. You are correct. It was the Patriot Act that Russ voted no on all by himself.

[dsc]

87. no problem that makes sense

that was a courageous vote on his part

[tblue37]

42. I was also a Wes Clark supporter. I was disappointed not only that his

candidacy was virtually ignored, but also that like Howard Dean, he was never even considered for a position in the Obama administration.

[elleng]

47. Yes, tblue,

that's been bugging me for all these years.

[Avalux]

2. Well hello there Excelsyor!!! What's the point of your post?

Kerry apologists?? Which independent fact-checkers?

So many questions for you - looking forward to the discussion.

[dionysus]

3. probably those independant minded folks at newsmax or something...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Political expediency? Or, stupidity? Either way, he was wrong.

[blm]

5. The press was notoriously wrong about Kerry's position. He voted for IWR and when weapon inspectors

began reporting their findings and that there was no need to use military force in Iraq, Kerry stood with the weapon inspectors against any decision to INVADE. He did it publicly and not one of the other IWR voters would stand with him.

BTW - Dean, in Oct 2002, was also supportive of the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR, yet, the media and his supporters found every opportunity to see his ONLY as an anti-war position. Then they complain about Kerry's nuance.

So, yeah, you are wrong - Kerry never supported the INVASION. He sided with the weapon inspectors.
BTW - "Independent fact checkers" in a corporate media machine dead set against Kerry? LOL

[Fumesucker]

6. One post has links while the other does not

Which should I believe?

[ProSense]

8. "It is no wonder that independent fact-checkers have rejected Kerry's revisionist attempt"

"One post has links while the other does not"

Yeah, there are links to a bunch of tool fact checkers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x619869

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100247223

[Fumesucker]

12. I quit clicking on your links a long time ago, you wasted my time too often

Let the poster I asked the question of post their own links.

[bahrbearian]

48. +1

[ProSense]

50. Now, you know that's not the case

I mean, I posted about Kerry and diplomacy, and it appeared to cause panic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090

[blm]

21. Try believing the truth - not corpmedia revisionists protecting Bush WH in an election year.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6190720/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/inspector-iraq-had-no-wmd-invasion/#.UxTtDTnnZQs

<<<The Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States did not have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.
Report could boost Kerry

The report could boost Kerry’s contentions that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.>>>

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031217.html
<<<
The Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq passed in October 2002 with the support of Dean rivals Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-MO, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, Senator Joe Lieberman, D-CT, and Senator John Edwards, D-NC. As CNN reported at the time, it "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. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days." (Bush has taken these steps as required.)

Dean did not support this resolution. However, as Kerry and Gephardt have pointed out and as Ron Fournier reported last week in the Associated Press, Dean supported an alternate resolution known as Biden-Lugar:

[T]he former Vermont governor rarely mentions his support of a resolution by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joe Biden, D-Del., that would have asked Bush to get a new U.N. resolution to enforce weapons inspections in Iraq.
If the United Nations had declined, the president would have had to make a formal determination that the Iraqi threat was so serious that the use of military force would be necessary.
Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter -- not seek a vote of approval -- before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress.
>>>>

Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, Governor, what, in your mind, would justify a strike on Iraq?

DEAN: Well, first of all, a strike may be justified. What he's got to say, what the president has got to say is that Saddam has atomic or biological weapons and has the means to deliver them to ourselves and our allies. That case -- he has never said that, to my knowledge, nor have any of his surrogates.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

But, Bob, my problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not.

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.
>>>>>

[Fumesucker]

25. There were some Democrats who voted consistently against invading Iraq, they weren't fooled by Dubya

John Kerry was not one of those Democrats.

[blm]

33. Wasn't a matter of being fooled - it was a matter of Bush not adhering to guidelines.

And Kerry said before that vote in 2002 that if Bush did not follow through with the guidelines and allow weapon inspectors to do their job, he would stand against any invasion of Iraq. And he did. He sided with the weapon inspectors AGAINST invasion, and has taken the greatest heat for it, even more than the IWR voters who stayed sided with Bush's decision to invade, like Clinton and Biden.

Kerry was more consistent than media would dare to say, so, of course they portrayed it using Rove's narrative. Too bad that so many on the left chose to run with Rove's spin, too.

Me....Jan2004:
Corporate media fears Kerry presidency.


Is this why Kerry's candidacy was declared dead for months, thereby drying up Kerry's fundraising? Why the media focused on rivals and downplayed the truth about Kerry's support on the ground? Kerry's big Iowa win PROVED the media was lying to us for months.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Fumesucker]

51. By 2003 anyone who didn't know Dubya was going to do what he wanted to do was a fool

DU certainly knew.

[blm]

89. The vote was Oct2002 - Kerry sided with the inspectors and AGAINST invasion publicly.

Those here and in the corpmedia claiming he supported the invasion and the decision to invade, are wrong.

[ProSense]

39. Wait

"There were some Democrats who voted consistently against invading Iraq, they weren't fooled by Dubya"

...which ones?

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.

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.

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

Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war.

There were NO UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR, but they returned shortly after.

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.

After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush's 16 words still hotly debated
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/20/sprj.irq.wmd.investigation/

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm

...and then in the bullshit letter and report he sent to Congress claiming a link to the 9/11 attacks.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Bush's signing statement spelled out his intent to ignore the conditional aspects of the IWR. He acknowledged that while Congress agreed that a threat existed, they didn't give him the full support to launch a war unconditionally.

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

<...>


The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.

[Fumesucker]

55. The Iraq war was the greatest foreign policy debacle since Viet Nam

If you wish to make the argument that the Democrats were almost universally stupid enough to go along with the debacle then please proceed.

[ProSense]

56. Yes, Bush really fucked up. Continue giving him a pass for lying. n/t

[reddread]

63. a massive success. but he could not have done it alone.

which is why the blame MUST go to Nader!

[Fumesucker]

70. I have plenty of posts on DU critical of Der Chimpenfuhrer, Dim Son, C+ Augustus

It's also obvious who enabled the fuckup.

Watching that shit go down in real time online was one of the less pleasant experiences of my life, right up there with the morning of 9/11, anyone who counted and didn't stand square against it will never regain my respect.

[karynnj]

28. Thanks for posting what is one of the hardest to find Dean Sunday talk shows

It was excluded from the many archives of Dean speeches - as were a few others in the fall.

Dean benefited from not having to vote in October 2002. Kerry benefited from being seen as having fp experience.

[blm]

29. More truth that will certainly be ignored....

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/09/28/flip-flop-cop-out-at-the-washington-times/131955

http://www.pittnews.com/news/article_c20283c0-8467-5d46-a8d5-ce43c7749063.html

Despite accusations, Kerry's position on Iraq has been consistent
THOMAS FITZGERALDKnight Ridder Newspapers | Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:00 am
JACKSONVILLE, Fla.
Sen. John Kerry set his jaw, and even sighed at one point, as he confronted anew the confusion over his stand on the Iraq war, a fog that has enveloped his candidacy for months.

"I have one position on Iraq," Kerry insisted this week during a rare news conference. "One position."
In fact, he's right, his image as a "flip-flopper" notwithstanding.

Kerry voted in October 2002 for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq. He now says that the invasion was not justified and has made the United States less secure.
These positions are not contradictory, but his attempts to explain the distinction between them are often complicated, and they have given President Bush an opening to caricature Kerry as a flip-flopper. However, beneath the torrent of campaign verbiage, Kerry's position on Iraq for the past two years has been consistent and defensible - just difficult to sell in a sound-bite world.

Kerry always called for a broad international coalition to confront Saddam Hussein, and going to war only as a last resort. Like most senators, he thought Bush needed the authority - it passed the Senate 77-23, and Kerry was one of 29 Democrats who supported it.

But once Bush got the authority, Kerry believes, he misused it.
>>>>>

[bvar22]

11. That is the "weasel out" that many Dems tried to use after voting FOR:

[font size=3]The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq[/font]
.
.
.
but NOW they are trying to pretend that it wasn't an
[font size=3]Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.[/font]

Those brave Democrats who voted against
[font size=3]The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq[/font]
knew EXACTLY what this was.

While I question the motives of the OP,
lets Keep it REAL please.

[font size=3]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
or
The Iraq War Resolution

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


Thanks to the above Democrats who place decency and integrity above Political Expediency.

and NO!!!
Bush didn't fool ANYBODY.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. I immediately discount anything someone with a Guy Fawkes avatar has to say

[bvar22]

24. And that is your problem.

Many Democrats do the same for anyone with an Hillary avatar,
but I usually judge people by the content of their posts.


Cheers.

[Excelsyor]

30. Isn't there a fallacy that describes your logic?

Or is it more than one fallacy?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. Yes. It's called, "Discounting opinions of people who identify with terrorists" fallacy.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. It's the 'I don't like to hear facts about courageous Democrats who really did vote againt

invading Iraq because Hillary voted for it while cheering and giggling, lost the 08 nomination while being called a warmonger for that vote by Obama supporting Democrats across America' maneuver.

[ProSense]

27. Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281

YEAs ---98


Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)


Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)


McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

War is war. That authorization, unlike Iraq, which was conditional, gave the President the power to wage war forever.

[KoKo]

34. Thank You! Those of us who watched Senators Byrd and Kennedy on the

Senate floor trying to stop this vote for "Authorization to Invade" Iraq for days and watched on C-Span the House vote and then the Senate remember how hard so many worked to try to stop it. Sometimes I wonder if it was just "theater," given what we've seen since then, but I stop myself and have hope that many of them who voted against were sincere. I know Robert Byrd was and believe Kennedy was, also. The House, as you point out, had many Democrats who voted against it...and given the "9/11" Climate of Fear that had to be difficult.

[freshwest]

88. Thank you. n/t

[ProSense]

7. Well,

On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy

The issue of Kerry and the Iraq War has come up recently as he tells Putin to stop invading other countries. Those who defend John Kerry's vote in 2002 for the authorization to invade Iraq argue the following:

That Kerry really disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because Kerry wanted diplomacy first.

But this argument falls flat when we see what Kerry said in a debate during Howard Dean two months after the invasion (May, 2003), even after stating in the same sentence he thought diplomacy was important:

"KERRY: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dems_Columbia_SC_John_Kerry.htm

...using a statement about disarming Saddam to refute that Kerry wasn't opposed to Bush's invasion is pure BS.

Every Senator supported disarming Saddam.

Feingold on the Senate floor, September 26, 2002:

<...>

The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue. What is the mission? Is the mission on the table disarmament or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing the weapons of mass destruction sites as part of a military operation in Iraq ? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the United States intends to take to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not remain a problem in Iraq beyond the facile ``get rid of Saddam Hussein'' rallying cry?

Saddam Hussein is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history, and I have no problem agreeing that the United States should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be much better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the sole personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9412-2.pdf#page=1
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9413.pdf#page=1

Here is Russ Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Also the Kerry statement you cited is May 2003, weeks after this:

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

It was also during a debate with Dean. Here is Dean after Saddam was captured.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/

More statements by Kerry during that time.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

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.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. so what?

even if I take your assertion as correct that Kerry was wrongly supportive of Bush's war, Kerry was one vote of 100 in the senate. He did not prosecute the war. He did not suggest the war. He was firmly against it in 2004.

More importantly, he is correct in his position that Putin is an outlaw that should be held accountable. As Secretary of State for the United States he SHOULD be pointing it out.

So NICE TRY, Buddy!!

[Fumesucker]

13. Dubya is also an outlaw that should be held accountable

Do wake me when that happens.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. again, irrelevant to the current situation.

[Fumesucker]

17. Not irrelevant to our outrage though

It's completely relevant to the US response to the situation.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. no. it is relevant to your outrage and that is about it.

I would say Kerry should be sent packing as SOS if he said, "Ordinarily, I'd condemn Putin and work with the EU to develop economic tools to punish Putin for such outright aggression, but because of my vote on the use of force revolution in 2003, I recuse myself."

[Fumesucker]

22. Actually he should shut the fuck up and say nothing

He simply has no legitimate moral standing to make the argument, neither does the US government.

To make an analogy it would be like John Wayne Gacy criticizing the criminal conduct of Charles Manson, laughable on its face.

Why are you in favor of having the world reminded in such an ironic fashion of what utter hypocrites we are?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Because I'd like the U.S. to lead diplomatic negotiations to get Russian soldiers the fuck out of

Ukraine other than on their own Naval base in Crimea.

[Fumesucker]

53. Thanks to his history Kerry simply isn't a credible intermediary in this matter

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. well, he is credible and will somehow trudge forward in his role despite your protests

[blm]

90. Why, because he has effected this nation's history more positively than you or millions of others,

including just about every lawmaker of the last 4 decades?

[quinnox]

10. And that wasn't even the worst blunder Kerry made either

the one that basically sunk him is when he said I voted for it before I voted against it. There aren't enough face palms in the world to cover that one.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. but he should get credit for launching an entire political flip flop meme

[quinnox]

16. lol, true!

[ProSense]

19. Then as now

" And that wasn't even the worst blunder Kerry made either the one that basically sunk him is when he said I voted for it before I voted against it. There aren't enough face palms in the world to cover that one."

...the problem was people jumping on the RW bandwagon, namely Roves.

Talking Points

Actually, it was Bush who threatened to veto a bill Kerry co-sponsored to provide $87B to the troops by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy elite. Effectively, Bush put his "have mores" ahead of our troops.

Kerry was telling the truth -- although he put it rather badly -- when he claimed that he "voted to provide the money before he voted against it". That's because there were two bills (hence, two options) for providing the funds. The first was S.1634, which Kerry co-sponsored but died in committee because of the Bush veto threat.

The bill that passed, S. 1689, had no provision for paying for the funding; thus, it provided $87 billion by running up the deficit further. An amendment offered by Biden (discussed below) which would have paid for the bill by rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy was defeated (tabled) by the majority Republicans.

The bottom line is this: Kerry proposed a bill to fund the troops. He proposed to pay for the funding, too, without running up the deficit. Bush threatened to veto a bill for funding the troops if it didn't run up the deficit. The GOP agreed, and their version passed.

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/87_billion_dollar

KERRY CALLS FOR SHARED SACRIFICE BY WEALTHIEST 1% OF AMERICANS TO PAY FOR $87 BILLION IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL

“I am confident that these patriotic Americans are prepared to sacrifice,” says Kerry

Thursday, October 2, 2003


WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today joined Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) in calling for shared sacrifice by the wealthiest one percent of Americans to help pay the cost of $87 billion supplemental spending request for the war in Iraq.

“Senator Biden and I are making a common-sense proposal. Rather than borrowing an additional $87 billion, we want to scale back some of the new tax cuts for Americans making over $300,000 a year,” said Kerry in a speech delivered from the floor of the Senate.

“To put this in perspective with the men and women who are making the sacrifice in uniform – who are putting it all on the line for the country – the average enlisted man or woman makes $30,000 per year and the average officer makes $67,000.

“We all know what’s happening. The troops didn’t make millions in the 1980s and 1990s; they’re hardworking men and women, mostly from the middle class, who are fighting America’s war. It’s not unfair to ask those that earn the very most – those many fortunate, talented and hardworking Americans earning more than $300,000 – to sacrifice some of their tax cuts in order to promote a free Iraq; to reduce some of the burden being placed on future generations; and help sustain education, health care, and homeland security.”

The Biden-Kerry amendment to the supplemental spending request reduces the size of the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans to help pay for the war in Iraq. The rate adjustment would occur during the final six years of the President’s 10-year tax cut plan.

“With 130,000 troops sacrificing every day in Iraq, terribly unfunded domestic programs, and historic debt growing in Washington, it is an equitable and responsible proposal. And I am confident that these patriotic Americans are prepared to sacrifice as well,” Kerry concluded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5366285

[blm]

37. So you side with RW narrative about that, quinnox? ALL votes are FOR a version of a bill you prefer

and against a version of the bill you do not prefer.

The corpmedia succeeded in making the public think it an oddity, even many Democrats who think they do not easily fall for corpmedia spin and revisionism....but.....they do.

[cali]

32. well done!

and a warm welcome to DU!

cali

[ProSense]

35. Hillary tops Christie by 2% in Virginia (poll)

Hillary tops Christie by 2% in Virginia (poll)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597976

"well done! and a warm welcome to DU!"

The OP is BS. A lame attack on Kerry, and calling people armed with the facts "apologists"

A Hillary supporter, no doubt.

[cali]

40. I said back then that I would never vote in the primary for any

of the people who voted for the IWR. It demonstrated either stupidity or cupidity. In the cases of clinton and kerry it obviously demonstrates the latter, propro.

the OP is right on and you don't post one thing that counters the facts the op presents. c'mon dearest pro, try harder.

Oh, and Hill topping the disgraced christie by 2 points? You think that's good? bwahahaha.

[ProSense]

41. No, the OP is BS, calcal

"Oh, and Hill topping the disgraced christie by 2 points? You think that's good? bwahahaha. "

Are you trying to pretend that you don't know why I cited the thread?

[cali]

59. no, propro, I don't know why you cited the thread. and come to think of

it, my darling, adoring propro, I don't give a flying... patootie.

[ProSense]

62. LOL!

"it, my darling, adoring propro, I don't give a flying... patootie.'

calcal, "darling," there is too much hootie "patootie" in your responses.

[ProSense]

44. Patrick Leahy also supported disarming Saddam

<...>

But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.

In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.

We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war

[cali]

57. You are twistin the facts completely and insinuating something totally false

that speech was a few days before the Iraq invasion and Leahy made clear in his impassioned speech against the war that he knew the resolution would pass and that he along with the rest of the country would then come together- but that speech before the vote, was an angry impassioned rant where he repeatedly railed against an invasion and called the IWR Tonkin Gulf redux and a blank check. Your post is devoid of even a shred of intellectual honesty, but hey, that keeps it in good company with the vast majority of your posts.



<snip>



Despite disagreements on our policy toward Iraq, there is no question that if a decision is made to send troops into battle every Member of Congress will unite behind the President and our armed forces.

But that time has not come, and based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists, and more enemies, we must act deliberately, not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq will have consequences for our country and the world for years to come.

<snip>

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm

Today we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. Yet instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, we have chosen to delegate this authority to the Executive Branch.

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.

[ProSense]

64. Did Leahy believe Saddam had WMD?

"that speech was a few days before the Iraq invasion and Leahy made clear in his impassioned speech against the war that he knew the resolution would pass and that he along with the rest of the country would then come together- but that speech before the vote, was an angry impassioned rant where he repeatedly railed against an invasion and called the IWR Tonkin Gulf redux and a blank check. Your post is devoid of even a shred of intellectual honesty, but hey, that keeps it in good company with the vast majority of your posts."

Did he say this:

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post44

[cali]

66. and?

he also made it clear that the case that he had wmd hadn't come close to being made.

[ProSense]

67. Did he believe Bush's lie? n/t

[phleshdef]

36. The Bush admin had damn near the whole country fooled on Iraq at first.

I'm not saying that gives anyone in the Senate who voted for the IWR a free pass. But lets not pretend like Kerry's support was some rare thing at the time, among Democrats or anyone else. Things changed after we figured out how much bullshit they fed everyone to get that war going, but by that time it was too late.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. 23 Senators and 132 House Members were not fooled and voted agains it.

Tens of thousands of Americans marched in protest of the invasion. I opposed it, my elected Representatives opposed it, Obama claims he opposed it but his wagon got hitched to a stack of folks who made the single stupidest and most craven vote for war ever in the history of the Untied States of America.
That's how I remember it. Because that's how it happened. 7 Republicans voted against the thing. Even Republicans could smell folly and defeat.

[ProSense]

46. President Obama

"Obama claims he opposed it but his wagon got hitched to a stack of folks who made the single stupidest and most craven vote for war ever in the history of the Untied States of America. "

...ended the Iraq war. The Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan got 98 votes in the Senate
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281

War is war. That authorization, unlike Iraq, which was conditional, gave the executive the power to wage war forever.

[phleshdef]

49. Thats not much of an opposition in the Senate or the House.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

Doesn't make it right... but lets not forget where the country was at the time.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. It's about a quarter of the combined chambers, and more than enough to nix claims of

universal duping of the Congress. Kerry and Clinton both voted for it while 23 Democratic Senators did not.
It is also a fact, and one that is searchable as hell on DU, that 'Hillary's War Vote' was held against her without reservation and contributed to her failure to gain the nomination. Randi Rhodes was calling her 'vermin' and Samantha Powers called her 'a monster'. That vote was painted as unforgivable, by huge numbers of Democrats. So the sudden declaration that it mattered less than a hill of beans is going to be a tough sell.

[phleshdef]

73. I never said universally duped. But 70 votes in favor of something is definitely stepping into...

...vast majority territory.

Hillary's war vote probably would not have been held against her as much if she hadn't been campaigning on annihilating Iran and shit.

[cali]

45. who's pretending that? I was disgusted then and I'm disgusted now.

<snip>
Many respected and knowledgeable people - former senior military officers and diplomats among them - have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there were credible evidence that Saddam Hussein were planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I.

We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation.

The Administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force. But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that "The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions."

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."

Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.

<snip>

But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting.

If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, does the Administration foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years and for how many billions of dollars? Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to rebuild Iraq even when the Administration is failing to budget what is needed to rebuild Afghanistan? Or to budget what is needed here at home for homeland defense, drought aid for farmers, and other domestic priorities, for that matter.

<snip>
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00095.htm

[Rex]

60. The only people that were fooled into believing Iraq had WMD, was the RWing spin machine.

Curious.

[Rex]

58. No they did not.

Revisionist history.

[phleshdef]

71. Horse shit. Something like 72% of the American public was behind it in the beginning.

Its not revisionist history. You just forgot how utterly stupid the American public was in the aftermath of 9/11.

[Rex]

61. Authoritarians are foaming at the mouth over this obvious reference.

Just can't stand it when everyone and their dog points out the obvious hypocrisy!

[ProSense]

65. No, people with good sense aren't buying the RW BS mischaracterization. n/t

[Bad Thoughts]

68. Kerry deluded himself to the meaning of the 2002 Iraq Resolution

He did not believe that it was a declaration of war in and of itself, but a set of conditions that required cooperation with the United Nations.

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

It was a rookie move, but it does not make him a warmonger.

[frazzled]

76. Not so

See my post below.

[Bad Thoughts]

77. I saw it

You may argue that it was incompetent, and that he should be disqualified for exercising this kind of authority on that basis. However, this statement, and many others, that he made before running for the presidency support the notion that he believed that the vote was not directly for war, and that it burdened Bush to try diplomacy first.

[sabrina 1]

69. Anyone who thought they could trust Bush with that kind of authority was not fit for public office,

frankly. You didn't even have to be a genius, or just in possession of a few brain cells to know Bush was salivating to be able to claim he had 'Congresional Approval' for the massive crime he fully intended to commit.

Which is why, regardless of WHY they handed over their authority the War Criminals, because they were so naive they thought they could trust him, or they agreed with him, I will never support anyone who put this country into that tragic mess.

[ProSense]

72. It's a good thing

"Anyone who thought they could trust Bush with that kind of authority was not fit for public office, frankly. You didn't even have to be a genius, or just in possession of a few brain cells to know Bush was salivating to be able to claim he had 'Congresional Approval' for the massive crime he fully intended to commit."

...Senator Harkin is retiring, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023871310#post18

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. Leave Harkin ALONE!!!

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120512001908/victorious/images/d/de/LEAVE_BRITNEY_ALONE!_gif.gif

[sabrina 1]

79. Is he in NY, did he run for President? Not sure why you think that alters anything I said.

[ProSense]

80. "Anyone who thought they could trust Bush with that kind of authority was not fit for public office"

That's what you said.

[frazzled]

75. Yes, Kerry supported the invasion (with another link)

And nothing that certain posters here will come swooping down to say will convince me otherwise. I was there; he was my senator; I had a few words with him in person, about which he got pretty defensive. The day before my birthday, just before the first bombs would fall in Shock and Awe on Baghdad, he gave this speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (it was this speech that I asked about when we met).

The speech contains incontrovertible statements, even before the invasion occurred, to the effect that, although he wished a diplomatic path had been followed, he fully supported the decision to invade, and to invade UNILATERALLY. What was more disappointing was that he also made a statement in support of the idea that the president had not just the right but the "duty" to protect "long-term" security threats: not imminent threat, but future threat. That, my friends, was the Bush Doctrine.

A chunk of that speech follows:

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.

That said, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, truly the personification of evil. He has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, perpetrated environmental disaster, purposefully destabilized an entire region of the world, murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, flouted the will of the United Nations and the world in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States, and provided harbor and support to terrorists bent on destroying us and our friends.

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

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. In the colloquial, we are where we are.

http://www.cfr.org/world/senator-john-kerrys-statement-response-presidents-speech-nation/p5722

To be fair, I do not believe this is the path Kerry would have taken on his own. I am not even sure it is the path that he would have taken as a senator if he had not been planning to run for the presidency. (It's why I didn't work for his candidacy in the primaries, although I supported him in the general; it's also why I think he lost.) And I do not believe that he is gunning for war now. Even if he were, I am pretty sure that Obama is not gunning for such a war. So I draw no conclusions regarding Russia/Crimea/Ukraine.

I do think historical records are important. No, the press did not misrepresent Kerry's position. Kerry, if anything, misrepresented his own position in a misguided attempt to position himself as a presidential candidate. It backfired.

I think Kerry is doing an excellent job so far as Secretary of State. Let's leave it at that.

[ProSense]

78. Oh brother. This

is Kerry's statement after Bush decided to invade. It begins.

I find myself genuinely 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 11th.

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.

[frazzled]

81. Yeah, and then it says "That said ..."

and goes on to make an argument for why he gives in and supports it. It's not how about how the speech begins in the first paragraphs: it's about everything that follows, which I posted and you apparently failed to read. Or want to erase, or whatever. But denial doesn't help.

Read the whole speech again, in its entirety, note the date of it (two days before the invasion). It is a clear and unambiguous statement in which he says "I support" the effort to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein "once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people."

There's no ifs, ands, or buts there. It says he supports it, even despite his wish for more diplomacy and regret over Bush's botching that. He says we can't wait for the UN or other countries. He says we have to do it to protect "long-term" threats to our national security.

Please, you're a reasonable person. Kerry said this. There is no walking it back. It's in black and white in the paragraphs I posted. It may have been a stupid thing to say, but he said it. I think you need to just deal with it and move on. I have.

[ProSense]

82. Kerry a few weeks later:

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm


More statement: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post7

[frazzled]

84. No, end of discussion: deal with what he said

in one of the most formal contexts one can conceive: a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, just after the announcement we would bomb Iraq, and two days before it occurred.

I don't care what "else" he said a few weeks after the bombs came raining down (which he said "I support&quot , or what you can cherry pick from common dreams.

You don't get to pick statements to say what you want. I have shown he made a clear and incontrovertible statement just before the war, and whatever else he said doesn't change that.

Surrender.

[ProSense]

85. I know what he said, but you seem to want to ignore parts of his statement and

the rest of his comments on the invasion.

"I don't care what 'else' he said a few weeks after the bombs came raining down (which he said "I support&quot , or what you can cherry pick from common dreams."

I pointed to the context of his comment from the link you provided. It was Kerry's statement after Bush decided to invade. t begins.

I find myself genuinely 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 11th.

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.