Why did Kerry vote against first Gulf War and vote for the second?

[adamrsilva]

Does anyone know his justification for this? This positions seriously concerns me.

He votes against action in the Gulf when Saddam invades Kuwait, and then votes yes when Saddam was contained and there clearly was no threat to the United States or our allies.

I hope people know what they are doing here.

[joeybee12]

1. I think you're right--about the votes.

I know for sure that was Biden's route--against in 1991, and rally overboard for in 2002. There was a lot of talk by the media whores during 2002 about how the no vote in 1991 was haunting some Dems and they voted for this because they didn't want to seem weak on defense/foreign policy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Interesting, eh?

I read an article about that today and asked myself the same question. Makes NO sense whatsoever. :shrug:

[sallyseven]

3. In my humble opinion

I thought he told bush to check with the UN. It was not carte blanc.
So maybe people should check the facts. Maybe I am wrong? I doubt it.

[joeybee12]

9. Gee, you are wrong...

...the resolution did not hinder Dumbo in any way--wording about UN, etc., meant nothing, because he was given a free rein to do whatever he wanted with or without the UN--there was no clause for him to consult with Congress yet again.

This vote was one of the more despicable this Congress has ever taken--they relinquished their right to declare war (which is constitutionally their's) simply because it was politically expedient. No debate whatsoever. It was and still is sickening.

[DjTj]

34. There was already a UN Resolution...

...so the IWR effectively gave Bush carte blanche.

I was real pissed back in 2001, but I've gotten over it now. It definitely didn't help that I saw Scott Ritter speak just a few weeks afterwards...

In any case, some Senatorts said that they needed a strongly worded Resolution because it was the only chance we had to get other allies on board. That's what Colin Powell was saying to a lot of people.

By the time of the vote, so many of our troops were already mobilized that unless the Senate passed a Resolution forbidding Bush to go, he could have gone with no authorization (did Clinton ever go to Congress about Kosovo?).

If the Dems shot down the IWR and Bush went anyways without allies, he could've blamed the lack of allies on the Dems ... The Neocons really had us cornered and even now I don't see any way we could've really gotten out of it.

My thinking now is that we just can't have Bush holding all the cards anymore. It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to get Bush out of office so this never happens again.

[Nicholas_J]

47. No there wasnt.

Bush did not go to the U.N. to begin to make his request to do something about Iraq until November, after the signing of the resolutions which clearly states:

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10



SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to —

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

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

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

The Iraq resolution clearlycites that the president must obtain the support of the United Nations to go to war with Iraq if he wants to deal with the issue of Iraqs continued violation of U.N. resolutions placed against Iraq in 1991, and only gives authorization to go to war unilaterally if the president cna provide evidence of an imminent threat posed by Iraq to the U.S.

So the resolution was not blank check, but placed rather strong restrictions on the president if they were to gain his support.

[Zynx]

4. Simple and I can explain it in a short sentence.

He wasn't running for president in 1992.

[adamrsilva]

10. But why vote against it?

Was it not justified? That's pretty radical.

[Zynx]

14. He's actually a dove. He just voted for the IWR to appear tougher.

The experience of Vietnam made him wary of foreign adventures and rightfully so. However, the IWR vote is something else entirely.

[Bush loves Jiang]

18. Kerry sucks...

He's willing to fight for oil in Iraq but not for democracy in Taiwan.

[emulatorloo]

39. It is more complicated than that . . .

GWB briefed the senate w Top Secret Briefing that "proved" Saddam had WMDs and was developing nukes. Kerry voted for war as a LAST resort to disarm him. Bush promised to work hard to get the inspectors in, work with the UN do everything possible and use War as a LAST Resort. Bush lied.

[Nicholas_J]

50. At the time

It was not justified, and the diplomatic efforts established by the U.N. to compel Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait had still not exceed the time limits set upon Iraq by the U.N. to comply with them.

The war would not be justified until the U.N. agreed to go along with the U.S. and form a coalition, and this had not happened at the time that the request that George Herbert Walker Bush presented to the Congress 1989-1990. THe act in 1991 was similar to the act in 2002.

George Bush's father went to congress asking to go to the U.N. in order to go to War With Iraq, after less than a year of diplomatic efforts given a chance to get Saddam to leave Kuwait.

George Bush did the same thing. went to Congress before going to the U.N.

Differnce is that his father got U.N. support for war, and George Bush did not.

In both cases, the president asked congress for support before getting a U.N. agreement on going to war with Iraq.

[paulk]

58. Do you think it was justified?

I realize your purpose in this thread is mainly to smear Kerry, but I'm asking you an honest question.

You are aware that most Democrats in Congress voted against the 1991 Gulf War, aren't you? In fact, most of the Democrat electorate was opposed to the war. It wasn't exactly the popular red, white, and blue action the media now portrays it as.

Calling Kerry's (and, once again) the majority of Democrats actions in relation to the first Gulf War "radical" is recidivism of the worst sort, especially as it is being used to trash a fellow Democrat.

[Metrix]

59. The majority of Democrats opposed the first Gulf War

This isn't ancient history. The information is readily available. Gore's vote for the first Gulf War went against the majority of his party.

[milkyway]

33. Exactly! That's our Kerry. If he becomes President, he would buckle

under every time the right wing media went after him.

[Vote2004]

5. I didn't know that.

Geesh, it doesn't make sense..... and what about Bosnia? I heard something about that, but don't know all the details, can someone please enlighten me on this? :wtf:

[Vote2004]

7. DO'H!

Think I got confused him with Clark.?? ?

[adamrsilva]

11. I found this

I looked through a few articles. No detailed explanation, but apparently he favored sanctions, and not war. He later had this to say:

In March 1991, Kerry said this about his opposition to the first Gulf war: "If the president had told me that there would be only 100 casualties and it would just take a week, I would have voted in favor of using military force."

[Vote2004]

27. Thank you for the info

To be fair to any Pres. who goes to war, how can anyone predict the outcome of a war so precise? Damn, this is a mad world. Again, thanks for your reply, I am learning a lot here from different people and their input and I thank you for yours.

[lcordero]

6. I guess it was this

One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"

Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Another version of the transcript (the one published in the New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

I guess he found out that it doesn't pay to be a politician and to be honest at the same time.

[nomaco-10]

8. Kerry is a career politician that votes whatever...

he thinks will get him elected for the next term. As far as I'm concerned he's sold his soul to the DLC and the Washington power brokers. He is not redeemable in my eyes ever.

[adamrsilva]

12. This raises serious questions about him for me

I don't think I trust him to decide which wars are justified and which are not.

[joeybee12]

13. Pretty harsh, but I agree with you...

...I am really disappointed with Kerry over this--thought he was better than what you described. I was almost even going to give him the benefit of the doubt as he tried to explain his vote through the campaign, and then he went and bragged about the vote after Saddam was captured. Never again.

And if he gets the nomination--I don't know, I can't vote for Dumbo ever, and I can't see myself voting for Kerry. It's looking very likely third-party for me.

[adamrsilva]

16. I'm seriously hoping Dean pulls out a win in NH now

or Clark gets a strong second and takes Kerry on.

[mitchum]

23. I hope Dean gets his ass handed to him...

AGAIN
You guys watch out for your noses

[adamrsilva]

32. Kerry is a Washington politician who cares more about

political expediency than what is right. He acts like he deserves to be President, and he so clearly does not. You'd do well to see that.

[mitchum]

37. Dude, that "Kerry's divine right" smear is so 2003

Your bitter buddies have much newer bullshit to fling. Check with them.

[Nicholas_J]

46. Already

Media Political Pundits are giving this to Kerry, and every poll indicates this is true, with Kerry having major lead with both Democrats and Independents, and Clark and Edwards picking up a large number of independents. Independents are being siphoned away from Dean, and they are finding Edwards message more appealing than Deans now.

[blm]

17. Yeah, the Washington powerbrokers really liked it when he exposed them

in BCCI.

They REALLY loved his 10 year efforts crafting the Kyoto Protocol. Yep...big business LOVED the Kyoto Protocol and can't wait for him to implement it as president.

[adamrsilva]

19. What does that have to do with anything?

.

[Padraig18]

21. And this relates to his war votes HOW, exactly?

:wtf:

[Forkboy]

75. it doesn't

it's another way to try get people not to look behind the curtain.

"Forget this issue...look at that really interesting thing over there!!!"

[emulatorloo]

42. Post #36 Please - Bush's Lies, Bush's War

Please read my post 36 and the linked interview

[Padraig18]

15. That's puzzled the shit outta me, too.

The first was clearly right, and the second was clearly wrong. Kerry can't even bat .500 in terms of war votes? :wtf:

[bigtree]

22. 'course,

all but Gore voted against. Mostly the vote was an exercise of party unity which has been lacking ever since. The more appropriate question at the time was what motivated Al.

[adamrsilva]

26. Gore was not the only one

.

[bigtree]

43. All Dems

[Nazgul35]

20. Might have had something to do with when the election was...

In 1992, the election came before the Gulf War Resolution....

In 2002, the vote for the Iraq War Resolution came before the election....

Don't want to face those voters being soft on terra....

[funkyflathead]

24. That puzzles me too but unlike dumya he at least has combat experience

so he really knows what it is like under fire.

This in sharp contrast to our last two presidents, especially this clown we have now!

[WiseMen]

25. I am watching C-Span. Will make a stab in a few minutes Good Question

Kerry was very cautions getting the U.S. military more deeply involved in the region. He chaired committees that investigated the Reagan secret operations in Iraq and Iran in the 80s and questioned the motives of various parties involved.

More later.

[Nicholas_J]

28. The first gulf war legislation

had no requirement for the first President Bush to get international support through the U.N. to go to War with Iraq during the first Gulf War. Whisk Kerry insisted upon. Which is why when Kerry took part in amending the Iraq Resolution, Kerry made sure that the legislation stated that Bush had to go to the U.N. first and exhaust diplomatic means before going to war.

Can you explain why Dean supported unilateral action in Iraq, even if Iraq did not constiture a threat to the U.S. in both September of 2002, and February of 2003, but merely required that the U.N. be found to not support its own resolutions or that Saddam would not dissarm? To follow:


Why was Dean the first person to support unilateral invasion of Iraq one week before the Iraq resolution was signed?

"DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

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

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

*******************************************************************


And, for true "shiftiness" five months later:


"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html


Then can you explain Dean's flip flop later, stating he would go in with the U.N. only:

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

Deans 20 /20 hindsite about Iraq, as one can see here, only came after The Bush Administration attacked.

Prior to the attack, one can see that Dean supbscribed to the exact same doctrine that Bush subscribed to, with Bush going into Iraq exactly 60 days after the United Nations sent in its inspectors.

Or lets look at all of the other times Dean stated he would do the same thing Bush did...

According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper, when Dean was asked to clarify his Iraq position, Dean said that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, Dean said, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

Five months before this statement, according to a Des Moines Register report on October 6, 2002, Dean said, "It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally , but that should not be our first option."

On January 31, 2003, Dean told the LA Times' Ron Brownstein that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

Since then, however, Dean has insisted that unilateral war is wholly unacceptable. In April 2003, Dean described unilateralism as "a disaster" and an approach "doomed to failure."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html

I am gravely concerned about a candidate who has seemed so wishy washy on his stances on Iraq, continually criticising candidates for signing the Iraq Resolution, while many times stating that he would do the same thing George Bush did. attack without the support of the U.N.

[adamrsilva]

29. "....BUT BUT DEAN SUPPORTED THE WAR TOO!" Please!

I'm talking about Kerry here and he clearly made the wrong choice both times. There's no real defense for that I see.

[Nicholas_J]

30. Obviously

It has not been considered the wrong opinion either time, both due to the overwhelming support of those who oppose the war in Iraq, both in Iowa, where polls show twice as many peopole who opposed the War in Iraq supprting Kerry, rather than Dean, as well as in current New Hampshire polls where the same percentages of people who were for and aganst the war support Kerry, and more than twice the percentage of those opposed the war in New Hampshire supported Kerry, as well as 4 times as many people who supported the war supporting Kerry.

Another reason that Kerry did not suport the first Gulf war is that diplomat efforts had only been given less than a year to get Iraq out of Kuwait, while by the time of October 2002, Saddam had been given over 12 years to abide by U.N. resolutions, had kicked out the U.N. inspectors in 1998, and was in flagrant violation of the U.N. resolutions that he agreed to in 1992.

As Kerry says he will not go to way lightly, and it seems that from his statements Dean was actually far more illing to go to war lightly than Kerry.

Kerry waited 12 years to go to support war in Iraq. Dean did not.

It is obvious that Kerrys stance is the most widely supported by the American Public, and that Governor Deans is not.

[adamrsilva]

31. Kerry got those votes because people didn't have an alternative

they thought could beat Bush, not because they agree with his stance. And 10-to-1 they don't know how he stood against the first Gulf War. Besides, were 70% of Americans right when they supported this war? No, so majorities mean nothing.

[Nicholas_J]

35. As Kerry has stated

HE will exhaust all diplomatic means first before going to War with anyone. By January of 1991, diplomatic efforts had been given less than a year to deal with Saddams invasion of Kuwait.

By March of 2003, Saddam had 12 years of violating U.N. and international law. The decision in both 1991 and in 2002 were both the proper decision. THe first based on exhausing all diplomatic means before going to war, the second, based on exhausting all diplomatic means before giong to war.

[emulatorloo]

41. Bush Lied to Kerry - This is Bush's War, not Kerry's

See my post 36 below. People try to oversimplfy IWR - it was not a vote to authorize a unilateral war. War was to be the last resort. Not the first resort as practiced by GWB

[Kipepeo]

45. That's not enough of a reason...

I'm sorry, but "Bush lied to Kerry" is not enough of a reason for me to understand why Kerry voted for the war. Bush lied to EVERYONE but still hundreds of thousands of people turned out in the streets of America to protest his war built on lies before it ever happened. We saw the largest global anti-war demonstration ever and somehow we all figured it out but Kerry didn't? I don't buy it. I think he voted for the war, not because he belived Dubya's lie, but because he thought the American public might & he didn't want to lose their votes.

[nomaco-10]

48. Robert Byrd, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich .....

and a hundred and twenty something others saw thru the bullshit bush* tried to strong arm them into, they saw thru it, why didn't Kerry?
By the way FIVE more US troops DEAD today in Iraq and I definitely give a damn who voted IWR, it is a monumental issue in regards to who I vote for in 2004.

[Nicholas_J]

38. Wrong

Before Iowa, even two weeks before Iowa, Kerry camapign was written off as being failed and that there was no way he could possibly win Iowa, and no possible way his campign could rebound. The only real answer is that while closely looking at all of the candidates they found that the frontrunners, mainly Dean did not have viable answers nor could they offer any possible contest to Bush. And it is true. Dean has been rated in almost every poll that indicated ability to beat Bush as the candidate least able to beat Bush. In most polls, up until December, Kerry was rated as most able to beat Bush.
What has come through to most voters is that first, Dean has misrepresented the October Resolution as a vote for War, when if anyone takes the time to read it, it is a vote to go to the United Nations to aske to do something about Iraq, inclusing going to war.

[Nicholas_J]

44. Again

In Iowa several factors cost both Gephardt and Dean the wins projected for them.

People looked at their ideas about repealing the Bush Tax cuts.

Very few voters support either Deans or Gephardts stance of repealing all of them. No economist, whether liberal or conservative does. All economists state that doing so will throw the U.S. into and enormous recession if not a depression. Fewer people support Deans fiscal conservatism, and more support Kerrys Fiscal Progresive responsibility which is based on cutting taxes for the rich, and closing corporate loopholes. Among the general public taxing someone else is a beleoved campign platform.

Next, was the Iraq War. Deans stance has changed too many times, and the media made that clear in Iowa, and is doing so in New Hampshire.

After that, Deans draft record had a much larger than anticipated effect on voters making their final decisions. Especially among the two largest voting groups, baby boomers and older....

After Iowa, a whole new race

Some Iowa Democrats mentioned Dean’s draft deferment and his skiing in Colorado during the war.

It might be that the Vietnam War — and what candidates did during it —is being fought all over again in Democratic ranks.


http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:GCoNWYssj0gJ:msnbc.msn.com/id/4001863/+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Iowa+%22+%22Draft+%22+%22Deferment%22+%22caucus%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[bigtree]

64. It doesn't take much conviction to stand on the sidelines

and cherry-pick support for a doomed resolution, then stand back and throw stones in opposition. If Gov. Dean (and the rest of the detractors of the Democrat's who voted for the final IWR) had any dignity they wouldn't be so arrogant in their critisism of those who actually had the responsibility for the vote.

Foisting all of the blame on Congress allows the president what he sought by going there: Cover. Cover for pushing past Congress,the American people, and the international community by disregarding the restraint implied in the resolution and instead, pushing foward with his unilateral,preemptive invasion and occupation.

It's easy to sit in the catbird seat, cherry-picking and throwing stones.

[adamrsilva]

67. Russ Feingold had no problem voting against the war

.

[emulatorloo]

36. He did not vote for unilateral pre-emptive war

He voted for war as the last resort to disarm Saddam Hussein after being lied to by the Bush admin. They gave them "Top Secret" Breifings that we never saw that said that Saddam had WMDs and was making Nukes. Bush made promises that he would work to get the inspectors back in, would go to the UN, etc. That is what he voted for and BUSH LIED. People who say different are oversimplifying and blaming the victim.
Note that Ambassador Wilson, who blew the whistle on Yellow Cake, has endorsed Kerry
--------------------------------------------
From Will Pitt's interview
http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

Snip

 WRP: I wrote a book last September called ‘War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know,’ which stated that Iraq’s WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?


  JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.


  What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.


Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

snip

 Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That’s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.
---------------------------

On edit - format, wilson endorsement

[Nicholas_J]

40. Correct

In the First Gulf war scenario, Kerry did not vote for unilateral war or vote for any war as he insisted on exhausing all diplomatic efforts before going to war.

In October of this Year, he voted for a resolution that called for the exhausting of all diploamtic peaceful methods before going to war, which gives Kerrys stance in 1991, and in 2002 total consitancy.

[nomaco-10]

51. You can't keep dancing around the bold faced TRUTH

Kerry supporters keep bringing up Gulf War I and Afghanistan, there is NO significance to those resolutions and Kerry's VOTE to give the bush* cabal a signed check to invade Iraq in their blood lust for oil and power and a FREE REIGN to invade any country he desires without consulting congress. It's a HUGE deal to anyone that sat by their TV and watched the vote go down on C-Span. I will never forget it the longest day I live.

[adamrsilva]

52. Exact;y. Can we trust John Kerry to do what is right?

I have serious doubts.

[Walt Starr]

61. I don't

Nor do I believe I can ever trust the man.

[Nicholas_J]

54. Again

You can not keep trying to spin them as contradictory stances.

In January of 1990, George Bush went to congress and requested them to sign a document asking them to got to war with Iraq, before the United Nations agreed to take part in such a war. At this point, the U.N. only issued a condemnation of Iraq for invading and occupying Kuwait. with no commitment of forces.


It was not until March of 1991 that the U.N. finally voted, and set a date for Iraq to leave Kuwait or the U.N., would authorize an international war with Iraq.


A little more than a year was given to diplomatic efforts to get Saddam Hussein to comply.


In October 2002, Saddam had been given 12 years to comply with U.N. resolutions. This time Kerry signed a document that required the president to go to the U.N. first and exhaust all diploamtic measures before going to war in Iraq. In both cases Kerry commits himself to exhausting all international, diplomatic, peaceful methids before going to war.

Both votes are consistant with that principle.

[isbister]

55. Read the resolution

It will help you understand it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

[sandnsea]

49. "Sanctions are crumbling" Wes Clark

The containment was not working, sanctions were crumbling, oil was being sold illegally, evidence of weapons purchases began showing up. That was the situation in 2002. Wes Clark said so. Dennis Kucinich said inspectors had to go back into Iraq.

In 1991, we had just gotten done with all the illegalities in the Iran/Iraq war. Like he still says, every ounce of diplomacy should be used and war should only be a last resort with the support of the American people. He didn't think that was the case. He voted no.

Between 1991 and 1998, mountains of WMD were discovered, a nuclear program was discovered. Way way more stuff than anybody had ever imagined. He reasonably decided Saddam was a very real threat that had to be dealt with.

Between 1998 and 2002, no inspectors were in Iraq. When it came time to push for a resolution, Saddam balked and played games. He did it all through the fall of 2002. When it came time to enforce the UN resolution for disarmament and use military force as a last resort, he voted yes. Which let the UN and Saddam know we were serious and put the inspectors back in Iraq.

Pretty simple and logical. A whole lot more logical than going to war when we really didn't have evidence of WMD threats, then doing nothing when we did.

[nomaco-10]

53. In your unwaivering support for your candidate...

you would rationalize the deaths of over 500 American kids and the deaths of upwards of 20,000 to 40,000 (we're not allowed to know) Iraqi civilians for what, bush* and Cheney's maniacal vision of the Project for the New American Century, a road map to peace or the blood money to be made by Haliburton? I want no part of any candidate that is a party to the carnage in Iraq.

[emulatorloo]

63. Bush Lied to Kerry - This is Bush's War, not Kerry's

I am rationalizing nothing. The responsibility for this war lies with George W Bush and Dick Cheney and Halliburton, not John Kerry. Bush lied used false Top Secret Briefings to Lie. He Lied. He Lied to the Senate. He broke his promises. This is not John Kerry's war. Stop oversimplifying.

[adamrsilva]

65. Exactly

This issue is NOT dead.

[Walt Starr]

56. Two words describe it exactly

Political expediency.

The man has no scruples.

[bigtree]

69. It's funny

How you define the pro-IWR vote as political expediency while at the same time advocating that a 'no' vote was superior.

What are you really arguing here? That more Americans were likely to agree with Sen. Kerry's vote, therefore he would get the political benefit of that? Was it clear at the time of the vote that Americans supported the IWR? If not, then where is the political benefit? How could anyone know what the politics would be a year from the vote?

If most Americans do indeed believe that his vote was correct then they will be more aligned with the argument of the senator and others that Bush pushed past the clear mandate of Congress which advocated in its resolution that the threat be imminent, and that Bush go back to the U.N. and exhaust the potential for international support. None of which the president did. He pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless, predisposed agenda to invade and occupy Iraq.


The power to commit forces was invested in loopholes in the WPA. The War Powers Act. The same authority that presidents have used for decades to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

Bush wanted the cover of Congress. Save the provisions that Sen. Kerry and others had included in the resolution about proceeding to war only as a last resort, Democrat's imput on that bill - which sought to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. - was reduced to a no vote. The bill doesn't mandate an immediate rush to invade Iraq. It actually mandates against that. Bush disregarded the intent of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to invasion and occupation.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war.

Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.

[zulchzulu]

57. What's great is what Kerry did after Persian Gulf War started

What's more troubling is how Dean (who wants to bring this up as an issue) was really for both wars. At the time of the IWR, Dean is on record for being for the Biden-Lugar amendment as well as stating that unilateral strikes at Iraq could be used. If he had been in a position to vote, he almost positively would have voted for the war. But wait, he's the anti-war candidate!

Kerry wanted sanctions and have more of a UN presence in the Persian Gulf war. What shows how he continued to care for vets (that both Dean and Bush wanted to cut benefits for) is an even more admirable trait:

(snip)

"During the Persian Gulf War, Kerry voted to postpone interest payments on SBA loans and extend tax return filing deadlines for reservists who went to serve in the Middle East, and has been outspoken in probing the causes of mysterious illnesses that afflict Gulf War veterans - - cosponsoring the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1996 to make medical connections between physical afflictions and wartime toxic exposure.

Senator Kerry has stood up for veterans in the areas of military commendation, funding of homeless shelters for U.S. veterans, preventing premature hospital discharges, VA Hospital renovation, funeral and burial benefits, disability coverage, review of compensation for veterans' benefits & medical care, post-service employment, and national commemoration (including the declaration of National POW/MIA Recognition Day)."

http://www.votewithavengeance.com/kerry.html

[bigtree]

71. Does anyone really believe that Bush wouldn't have pushed past

Biden-Lugar with a wink and a letter to Congress?

Or for that matter, how would a 'no' vote restrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441. He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting. What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy. Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere. But some, in the pursuit of "political expediency" will attempt to hold Democrats who voted for the IWR as responsible for his arbitrary invasion. Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. ?

:shrug:

[LBJBestEver]

62. Because Saddam was not a threat in '92. According to intel he was in '02

nm

[MoonRiver]

66. It seriously concerns me also. That's one big reason why I'm a Clark

supporter. But, honestly, what concerns me more is * getting 4 more and leading this country down into the sewer. Kerry, with all his flaws, is so much better than the nightmare regime that I'd be overjoyed to have him win the GE. Scratch the surface and don't we all feel that way about getting * out?

[edzontar]

68. The first vote was principled, the second was a politcal sell-out

That's my biggest beef with Kerry.

And I must say that his garbled attempts to excuse--er, waffle--er, explain--his IWR vote do not inspire confidence for his performance in the GE.

[mmonk]

70. He voted for the second

because the first was popular.

[adamrsilva]

72. Bingo

The fact that a lot of Dems voted against the first Gulf War and most of the same voted for this makes it seem all the more political than principled.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

73. Kudos to Nicholas_J and bigtree here.

Great research by Nicholas_J (as always) and a spirited defense by bigtree of Kerry from the "cherry pickers".

[MidwestMomma]

74. Yeah

:wtf: is up with that?

[Seldona]

76. As I see it,

Kerry did not vote for the first gulf war because he wanted the UN to be involved, and there was no direct threat to the Unites States.

Now I may be oversimplifing it a bit, but that is what I believe.

Now in the second gulf war we have a very, very, different situation.

He voted for a resolution that would disarm Iraq. He believed at this time Saddam posessed WMD. That is what the intel said.

The intel also stated Saddam was supporting AL Qada.

I believe John Kerry believed it at that time as well.

Was the intel correct? No.

Did Bush truly give the UN its due and let them do their thing? No.

The plain fact is here that we were duped by PNAC.

It was Cheney who was hanging around CIA Headquarters to 'pressure' intelligence analysts to put this info out.

Hell, I am not even a Kerry supporter. But I give him credit for this.

If Saddam had WMD, a nuclear program, and was supporting Al Qada, as was trumpeted at the time, no one should have let that threat pass. At least in my opinion.

The fact that Bush lied makes all the difference in the world to me.

Like John Kerry said, no one thought Bush would fuck it up this bad.

So basicaly Kerry believed Saddam had WMD, and was supporting Al Qada who had just attacked us. I believe that is what he thought at the time.

Just my 2 cents.

Sorry if I am rather inarticulate. It is late, and I really should be in bed. :)

Edited for clarity.