Chess, and the IWR

[Julien Sorel]

Here's a scenario we see here frequently: Kerry, or any other Democratic presidential candidate, votes against the IWR. One of two things happens,

1) Bush gets the votes needed any way (which he would have), invades Iraq, and finds some kind of weapons. Most of us thought something was there, I know I did, so did most intelligence agencies in the world. Then what? Bush would be beating holy hell out of, not just his opponent, but the entire Democratic Party. Instead of trying to win the senate, we'd be desperately trying to hold on to enough seats to be able to maintain filibusters. We would be the wimpy party, as so many Republicans try to paint us, the party that didn't want to allow Saint George to disarm the evil dragon Saddam.

2) Somehow, the Democrats are able to dredge up enough votes to stop the IWR, and Bush elects not to invade via some trumped up Gulf of Tonkin-type thing (Like anything was going to part him from his war). Then, every act of terrorism that happened anywhere in the world would be blamed on the obstructionist Democrats. It doesn't matter that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism; what would be said is George Bush had a brilliant plan to establish peace in the Middle East and end terrorism, but the lily-livered, soft on terror Democrats stopped him, because they wanted to put politics above security.


Politically, a yes vote was the only smart play. The one scenario where a yes vote even causes problems is when Bush launches his invasion and no weapons are found -- as actually happened, oddly enough. This causes more problems for Bush, however, than it does for the Democrats. We can debate the ethics of the war from here to eternity, and in fact, I was and am against it as immoral and foolish. But it's done now, and all the hand wringing in the world can't undo it. I'm more interested in stopping the next war, doing the best we can to cleanly end this one, and in re-building our economy, than I am in wasting time lamenting a vote that makes perfect political sense, and that wouldn't have changed a thing anyway, no matter how Kerry voted.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I agree..........I'd put nothing past this criminal organization.

When one is complicit in the deaths of 3,000 people, I think you can expect that they'd do anything to destroy the 1 Party that stands in the way of creating a Republican Totalitarian State.

[JPJones]

2. Also, don't forget that Kerry voted for the Durbin amendment

That required demonstration of an imminent threat. Hillary (along with your standard issue Republicrats) voted against this.


SA 4865. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4586 submitted by Mr. SPECTER and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 7, line 20, strike ``the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and insert ``an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction''.

Sorry, the link to the Senate web site is dynamic, so it will stop working soon.
http://thomas.loc.gov

So,
(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.

would have become:

(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 an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and

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

[greenohio]

3. All except for the fact

That the majority of Democrats voting in the primaries (including myself) wanted someone who opposed the war.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Fine, but what does that have to do with the here and now?