Whas Kerry's IWR vote unethical?

[AP]

Poll question: Whas Kerry's IWR vote unethical?

After reading the debate about Kerry's IWR vote, with which of these statements do you argree?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. That debate starts out

"But let's assume for argument's sake that Kerry's was a purely political vote."

since that is only an assumption, this poll leaves out the right answer. Making the assumption that the vote was 'purely' political turns it from a real into a hypothetical.

"Kerry's vote was ethical because he was doing what he believed was right"

[AP]

4. I'm trying to capture the flavor of the various arguments in that thread

But it's very long, and I didn't read them all.

[La_Serpiente]

2. I think that Kerry

really hurt himself when he voted for the Resolution. He was in a safe election district and could have easily voted No. However, if he really wanted a multi-lateral solution, he should've (well in my opinion at least) make sure that Bush had the necessary UN resolution. Bob Grahm even said this during the debates. The Congressional Resolution didn't say that UN approval was required.

I think Kerry would do a better job if he said on TV or during the debates why he voted for it.

[sleipnir]

7. My thoughts exactly

I wish he'd make some statement, as it stands, if he doesn't explain himself and humble himself to the Nth degree, I still refuse to vote for him in the general election, should he win the nomination. His only hope of getting my money and vote is a damn good explanation and most likely an apology.

[blm]

11. He has...many times.

And it is important tonote that the process was preserved, inspectors were put back in, the involvement of the UN was preserved, and Bush was prevented from further invasions of Iran and Syria. Kerry, Gep and others PAID for those things with their votes.

[salin]

3. or... other (or none of the above)

n/t

[Wwagsthedog]

5. Preemptive war is unethical

Ergo, none of the above

[punpirate]

6. Category missing...

... regardless of the debate here on the issue. That is that support for the war resolution was ethically and morally reprehensible in and of itself.

Bush has not told the truth about anything in his life, and yet, intelligent and sensible people chose to be misled by a liar, rather than be directed by their own consciences.

That, to me, is it in a nutshell. Everything said by those who voted in favor of the resolution after that vote is little more than an evasion of conscience, regardless of who's saying it.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Hi Punpirate

While I agree Bush is a pathological liar, is it fair to say that this means Democrats couldn't believe intelligence reports from our government that were supporting Bush's public statements?

I think there are 2 reasons for voting for:

(1) Maybe there was a threat (hindsight tells us this was not the case)

(2) What if the pathological liar was setting up the Democrats? Hoping that they'd vote on Party lines and then we have an Iraqi terrorist event (of course, we'd never investigate this one either). Since 80% of the people believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, what % of the American people would be convinced by the Republican corporate media that Democrats were the unindicted co-conspirators of Saddam's 2nd act of terror?

The Democrats had a Hobson's Choice on the IWR....vote yes and disillussion the base (but survive to fight another day on their own terms), vote no and either (1) or (2).

[punpirate]

10. I knew when Bush and his bunch were lying....

Why didn't our elected representatives? They're supposed to be smarter than us and better informed than us.

There was evidence from both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC that the Bushies were lying, well before the war vote. Nobody in Congress listened. Scott Ritter, for example, was yelling to anyone who would listen that it was all hype.

Don't believe it. These assholes voted for war because they wanted to save their political asses. Disillusion their base? Their base is already disillusioned with them.... Sorry, but we have a Congress full of cowards on one side and bullies on the other. If one is destined to lose, one at least has the option to speak truth to power. Few did.

I knew this war was wrong well before it began, well before the vote, and I knew the reasons behind it. If my representatives have to make excuses about not knowing what I could figure out without their help, what does that make them?

Cheers, OAITW.

[sandnsea]

9. 12 years of reports

Years of inspections. A nuclear program we didn't know they had. More weapons than we ever thought they had. Reports Iraq was continuing to make chemical weapons, even when inspectors were still there. Numerous problems with inspectors and the process. A 1998 resolution calling for regmine change. Add to that, increased ballistic missile technologies available, particularly in N Korea. Countries like Iran, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, becoming increasingly hostile. The need for the UN and the world to begin to take these threats seriously, especially after 9/11.

That's why he voted yes. He had been wanting Clinton to take a stronger stand against Iraq in order to get the world serious about weapons proliferation for years. That was his purpose. It was made based on information he had received on the Intelligence Committee and Foreign Relations Committe all through the 90's. It was a sound decision.

If you people honestly think a Senator should ignore years and years of reports and testimony because George Bush is a bad guy, I can tell you one thing, I don't want you in charge of U.S. security.

Kerry's vote was right. Bush's diplomatic efforts were abhorrant.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. I'm not voting in this poll- there is no good choice here

Kerry voted to enhance the President's authority. He would have voted the same no matter who was President.
Kerry's criticism came for 2 reasons:
1. The timing of the vote.
2. That there was even a vote at all.

The wording of the resolution added little to the actual existing constitutional presidential powers. The resolution and the vote was purely political. It was a threat of force aimed at Saddam. As McCain said it was meant to convey a sense of unity.
Kerry could have voted 'no' as he did in '91, but that was purely political too.

Congratulations to Rove. He has successfully handicapped our strongest threat to Bush.