Kerry: Bush Rush to War Ignores Vietnam

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says President Bush has breached a faith to keep young people from dying needlessly in combat, which he said was a lesson from the Vietnam War.

"You truly should go to war as a matter of last resort," Kerry told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday night. "I'm afraid the president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."

Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, was a decorated Navy lieutenant who became a prominent critic of the war after returning home. He voted for the congressional resolution authorizing last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, but now says Bush did not follow conditions of the deal, such as building a strong international coalition and emphasizing weapons inspections.

<snip>

He added: "If anyone believes that I would have used that authority the way George Bush did, they should not vote for me, period."

Interviewed on the same program 33 years ago, Kerry said he did not want to be president, and laughed at the suggestion. Recalling that answer now, Kerry said: "I thought my anti-war activities would probably disqualify me from running for office ... I think that's what I was referring to."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7795289.htm

[IndianaGreen]

1. And Kerry's vote for IWR

ignores the lessons, and tragic consequences of voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which led to the Vietnam buildup.

[styersc]

2. Haven't Greens helped Bush win the Whitehouse often enough?

I think maybe I'll pass on Green insight.

[IowaBiker]

3. Appaarently not. nt

[IndianaGreen]

4. What Green insight?

Are you attacking me because of my screen name while ignoring Kerry's record? Pathetic!

[styersc]

6. I'm not attacking you at all.

But it is a very long stretch to claim that Sen Kerry voted "to go to war" because Bush so horribly misused the tools that the senate gave to him. Had Bush used theses tools intelligently and morally, we would not have gone to war and tens thousands of people would be alive today.

Your argument is as logical and accurate as the argument that had the Greens backed Gore, then he would be in the Whitehouse and we would not be at war today.

Turn about is fair play.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Actually there is a big difference

between those two arguments because a good case could be made for "had the Greens backed Gore, then he would be in the Whitehouse"


but I don't know how someone could make a case for the idea that if Kerry had voted differently, Bush would not have been able to go to war. Bush would have gone to war with or without the resolution and the resolution would have passed with or without Kerry's vote.

[Forkboy]

29. Then why position yourself on Bush's side

if Bush was going to do what he wanted anyways why not be a voice of opposition? Especially after Kerry had just spoken out against the vote....then he turned around and voted for it.

Hint,politics...not leadership.Political cowardice,plain and simple.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. You are mischaracterizing.

Soon, your candidate will be history, and the Democrats will no longer be divided by this false and pointless argument.

[Forkboy]

39. 20,000 innocents dead = pointless argument

say no more... :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. It is possible to disagree with you without being a mass murderer.

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

48. Kerry isn't a mass murderer

he just assisted one :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. You are free

to hold that opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

I'm just thankful that, at the most, we have a few months left to repeat the same argument, once the primaries are over, we won't have to deal with this anymore.

[Forkboy]

55. You're right

then it'll be SycophantsUnderground.

[PVnRT]

31. Of course, that ignores

mass voter fraud in Florida, Democrats voting for Bush, and the Supreme Court which actually stole the election. But, no, keep on believing that it was the Greens....

[mmonk]

27. Bingo

[PatrickS]

5. Sure!

"You truly should go to war as a matter of last resort," Kerry told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday night. "I'm afraid the president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."

This statement would be funny if it wasn't so tragic!

[emulatorloo]

8. This is Bush's war, not Kerry's War

He did not vote for a unilateral war as the first resort! Bush lied not Kerry.

Here is my simplified xplain:

John Kerry does not like bad people having WMDs and never has. He still doesn't today.

In 2003, Intelligence agencies told the Senate that Saddam had WMDs in Top Secret Briefings and was going to bomb us.

Powell Cheney and Bush said they would do a lot of things before they resorted to going to war to take the WMDs from Saddam. They said that if they had to go to war, they would get all our friends on board first (france, germany, etc)

They lied, and broke their promises.

Wes Clark said he believed Saddam had WMDs too on meet the press this morning because Rumsfield told him so.

Howard Dean has said he wouldn't have believed them. But he is a governor and did not see the secret reports that showed Saddam's WMDs. So who knows for sure? He is a good man though and I will vote for him in the GE if he gets nom.

These reports were made up, but they seemed real, given that they came from intelligence agencies that said they were real.

So it is George Bush's war, Not John Kerry's

[IndianaGreen]

10. It is going to be Kerry's war and Kerry's PATRIOT Act

Kerry supported both, and Kerry will not get our troops out of Iraq, nor will he bring to an end Bush's Endless Wars. Kerry has already spoken against repeal of PATRIOT.

Imagine a Kerry Administration! Kerry will use PATRIOT to smash domestic criticism, just as Bush has. Kerry will keep the First Amendment Zones to keep peace demonstrators away from him, just as Bush has. People will continue to die in Iraq!

[bigtree]

11. Only one senator voted against the Patriot Act..

Most of the offensive provisions are set to expire soon. That's why such conservative radicals like the late Paul Wellstone voted for it.

That's how bills pass with diverse coalitions: Everyone thinking that their part of the bill will prevail. As you may have observed, these forced bills usually fall apart; often at the hands of those who would implement them.

Legislators always try to insert their language in resolutions - even flawed bills - on the chance that their initiative within the bill will prevail. This is something that has become more prevalent with the republican majority dominating the schedule. In republican-dominated committees they determine which legislation will go to the floor for consideration. Democrat participation in and out of committee is often reduced to a 'no' vote.

Democrats in this atmosphere often put their mark on a snowballing bill knowing that the heart of it is rotten but determined enough in their belief that their measure of the bill will take precedence. With a republican majority, sometimes that's all you can do to effect legislation.

Most of the Patriot act amends existing federal statutes that were targeted by conservatives before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. (Like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in the wake of FBI surveillance of U.S. citizens in the '60's and the '70's) This national security intelligence tool is being recklessly manipulated in the administration's zeal to prosecute their cynical "war on terrorism."

The FISA was sponsored in the ‘60's by Sen. Edward Kennedy and others in an attempt to reign in warrantless surveillance. But the FBI and the NSA have used the act to set up secret courts and have perverted the act to conduct surveillance for domestic criminal investigations in addition to their foreign counterintelligence probes.

Ted Kennedy and others weren't dupes for expecting the Patriot Act to be used without recrimination and guile. Bush is the actor in this who is to be condemned for abusing the authority given him in the wake of the tragedy of 9-11.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Democrats were as frightened after 9/11

as the Social Democrats were after the Reichstag fire in 1933. Sadly, the Democrats fumbled the ball just like the Social Democrats did.

How many of our candidates are calling for the outright repeal of PATRIOT?

[bigtree]

18. The nation was frightened. And we were stuck with a republican

majority in both houses. Intransigence was not a rational stance in the wake of the chaos and uncertainty. It was rushed. But the Democrats managed to make the offensive provisions temporary.

Practically no one is calling for complete repeal. Not even the ACLU. Check for yourself. Not even Rep. Kucinich is calling for total repeal. This should not be a wedge issue between Democrats. They didn't abuse the Act, Bush and Ashcroft did.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I want the Bill of Rights back as the Law of the Land

There is no compromise on civil liberties. I am saddened that so many Democrats were so willing to sell our freedoms for the sake of electoral politics.

[bigtree]

22. You aren't alone in you concern for the abuse of our freedoms

But when a president abuses an Act of Congress, he should be the one held accountable. This drumbeat of 'the Democrats are to blame' will only serve to cover the clear abuse by this Justice Dept.

Think man! If you succeed in foisting all of the blame for Bush's abuse on Congress Bush will just turn around and claim that the Justice Dept. was just following the will of Congress. Which is ridiculous. Ashcroft has clearly overstepped the intent of the Act. Now we have to make the case. This stone-throwing is a reckless expression of dissent that could muck up the prosecution of the Bush Gestapo. And I believe it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to mar the candidacy of John Kerry here on this board.

Quote: "I will attack Kerry mercilessly until he either drops out, or becomes the nominee."

[IndianaGreen]

23. Why didn't you finish the quote in my reply to blm?

BTW, I tip my hat in admiration to you for your passionate defense of your candidate, and your relentless attacks on his rivals.

I can't hardly wait for you and me to be on the same side of the barricades.

[bigtree]

24. Edit: Breathe

Best of luck to your candidate!

[IndianaGreen]

28. Best of luck to your candidate also!

This is child's play compared to what the nominee will have to face from different quarters.

[blm]

15. IG....get real. You KNOW that won't happen.

Why post so hysterical about it?

You know Kerry's a liberal and yet you pursue this line of attack. You, yourself, have posted in the past that Kerry is probably the most liberal candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

16. It's the primary season, blm

I will attack Kerry mercilessly until he either drops out, or becomes the nominee.

BTW, I tip my hat in admiration to you for your passionate defense of your candidate, and your relentless attacks on his rivals.

I can't hardly wait for you and me to be on the same side of the barricades.

[krkaufman]

71. Co-signers all

Wes Clark said he believed Saddam had WMDs too on meet the press this morning because Rumsfield told him so.

To be accurate, Clark said on MTP (1/25) that Rumsfeld told him and a group of other military men that "I (Rumsfeld) *know* where 30% of the WMDs are." A specific, quantified response like this from the Secretary of Defense is a bit different than a generic "Saddam's got WMDs" statement.

Based on this information, in his testimony before Congress -- in opposition to Richard Perle -- Clark *did* say he believed Saddam had WMDs; however, Clark stated that Saddam posed no imminent threat, and other priorities (WoGT) needed to be considered.

It's the "imminent" thing that Kerry (& others) seem to have had trouble with.

So it is George Bush's war,

With Kerry, Edwards & Lieberman all as co-signers. They may not have bought it, but they helped Bush secure the loan.



edit: typo

[TheStateChief]

9. What "Conditions" Did the IWR Require?

I sure can't find anything in the IWR that requires Bushco to do anything like go to the United Nations, building a strong international coalition or emphasizing weapons inspections. This is one of those instances when Kerry seems to be re-writing history to fit his needs rather than standing up for his original beliefs (that giving Bush the ability to wage war was the way to go).

[bigtree]

14. This my analysis of the IWR

"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Doesn't this mean imminent threat? Didn't Bush exceed this authority?

____________________________________________________________________

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Isn't this stating that the authority is already inherent in the old War Powers Resolution which presidents have gone around for decades?

The authority is not inherent in the new resolution, the president already has that authority through the loopholes of the War Powers Act to commit forces that decades of presidents have used to commit forces without congressional approval. That is what this specific statutory authorization is stating, I believe. Hence:

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

___________________________________________________________________

Authority to proceed is granted by Congress under this legislation. (Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces) Authority is granted, effective with a:

(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.



The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070


All efforts to stifle Bush's manufactured mandate to conquer were rejected by the president and his Bush league. Bush pushed past the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community and invaded.


StateChief, welcome to DU! :wave:

[Forkboy]

12. a rush aided and abetted by people like Kerry

I'm so sick of his bs it's not even funny anymore.

[bigtree]

17. The BS was all Bush's

Bush's position at the time was that 1441 gave him sufficient authority to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 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. What good would the 'no' vote do in that case?

[Forkboy]

20. What good would it do?

Well,for one,Kerry wouldn't have the blood of 20,000 innocent Iraqi's on his hands.

Just small things like human lives....

[bigtree]

21. you act like you are the only one who could possibly concerned with

lost lives. I don't think even you believe that.

At any rate you do no good to your own cause by foisting the blame on Congress who tried in the resolution to reign him in.

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 their opposition to the war 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. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush.

[Forkboy]

32. If they were against it they would have voted NO

I place the blame firmly where it belongs...on BOTH Bush and the Dems who were cowards when faced with a vote that has cost thousands of lives.

"you act like you are the only one who could possibly concerned with lost lives."

And hearing the bullshit responses here I'm more tempted than ever to believe it.

[bigtree]

33. "Cowards"

And you,

Catbird Seat.


"Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?"

James Thurber~ Catbird Seat

[Forkboy]

34. Cowards? Damn right

And I have no need to tout my cred on DU or anywhere.

Weak attempts to insult me are not a good defense of Kerry.

Thanks for playing.

[bigtree]

35. There's no need to insult you and I haven't tried

catbird seat: sitting pretty

[emulatorloo]

25. The Blood is on Bush's hands

and Cheney's and Rumsfield's and Halliburton and all of the people in the Bush administration who concieved and executed this profit driven horror.

To simplistically condemn the people who were manipulated by this adminstration is to put the blame in the wrong place.

They took advantage of people who are rightly concerned about nuclear proliferation by telling them, with compelling 'top secret" briefings that Saddam was a real threat to us, could attack us at any moment. The American people and Congress were woefully used by this administration so that they could do what they wanted.

The argument that the people who were lied to and used are the ones who are responsible just doesn't hold water.

Make no mistake about it, this was Bush's war.

[Forkboy]

30. Kerry was manipulated?

Funny,he still supports his vote.

Nuance again,right?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. No. Congress got Bush to ask for a resolution,

Bush lied in order to justify the resolution, and did not fulfill it's requirements, instead, launching an illegal war at a time when diplomatic efforts were achieving the stated goal of the resolution.

[Forkboy]

40. He still supports his vote,right?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. You mean the vote that you claim means something other than it did?

Yes.

[Forkboy]

49. hey,I'm not the one saying the vote was fucking "nuanced"

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Actually, you are the one saying that

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

64. only repeating what his supporters have been saying

sorry if you can't handle it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. No you are repeating what you wish his supporters were saying.

You are repeating the media spin from last summer.

[Forkboy]

68. how's the view in the sand?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. Belittling comments win very few arguments.

[emulatorloo]

41. No not nuance - or funny

a consistent position on arms proliferation. A consistent position on working with our allies and the UN to identify threats to the community of nations. A consistent position on weapons inspectors. A consistent position of going to war as the **LAST** resort, and never unilaterally.


Sorry I can't spell. . . .

[isbister]

26. bush ignored Vietnam when it was happening

it just makes sense that he'd ignore it now

[Lobo_13]

38. and yet

Kerry voted to let Bush do it.

Curious.

[emulatorloo]

42. IWR is not an up down vote for a rush to unilateral war

There are posts above that go over this.

Bush and Colin Powell broke the promises they made to go to war as a last resort.

[Lobo_13]

46. For all his experience

and two previous years of getting screwed with our pants on, why on Earth did he trust Bush?

Why did he vote for NCLB?

Why did he vote for IWR?

Why did he vote for tax cuts?

Why did he roll over for Bush for three years until Howard Dean proved it was okay to stand up to Bush?

The IWR was authorization for Bush to go to war whenever he felt like it. It wasn't a formal declaration of war, it was as close as you could get. It was foolish for that resolution to pass, period. If he was worried about giving Bush that kind of power, he shouldn't have voted for it.

He voted in a way that he thought would position him best for his White House run. He's just another sleazy politician that will tell you whatever you want to hear, just as long as he gets your vote.

The United States Senate has the sole power to:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

If I make a speech about how bad it is to knock someone out, then knock someone out, then give another speech on why it was bad to knocks someone out, it doesn't relieve me of my culpability in knocking that person out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. Why

answer a question, when the answer will be ignored as if it weren't uttered?

I understand that you don't agree with the answers, but for instance to continually ask "Why did he vote for the IWR?" as if the answer has not already been given a thousand times does not advance the debate. Much more productive would be to disagree with the answer already given.

[Lobo_13]

62. I've heard the song and dance

it doesn't hold water with me.

He supported a war resolution that was similar to the Tonkin Resolution.

No matter how you want to dress it up, he voted to give war power to the President. There was no requirement to go to the UN. There was no requirement for Bush to make his case to anyone. He was given a free ticket and all of the hand wringing and bawling after the fact does not excuse Kerry from the culpability of his actions.

He screwed the American People just as surely as Bush has.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. What's interesting in this thread is that some folks are so eager

to attack Kerry over the IWR -- which the Iowa vote proved decisively is not an issue for the voters -- that they've missed the important part of this story.


Kerry is framing the debate for the general election.

Iraq is a quagmire. Already we have had more soldiers killed than in th e first four years of our involvement in Vietnam. And the administration, led by an awol frat-boy, almost eager to spend the blood of American soldiers in a haughty display of arrogance and pride - the same kind of arrogance that guided American policy in Vietnam.

Facing Bush, Kerry: the war hero, the anti-war hero, willing to fight, but only as a last resort.


We will win in November.

[oasis]

47. Those same folks would be well advised to envision what another Bush

term would do to the country and the planet. The high minded souls who are so bitter about a complicated IWR vote, will be Bush's enablers if they fail to act against him.

[Forkboy]

51. Thanks but

I've been voting for dems for 20 years now.I'm well past the point where guilt trips will sway me.Save it for the scared people...

I'm tired of choosing between taking large steps towards destruction or taking smaller steps towards that same destruction.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. WE WILL BEAT BUSH IN 2004!

I hope you will join with us to do so.

[Forkboy]

56. We'll see

I'm tired of being told that having principles is a negative.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. I'm tired

of being told who does and who doesn't have principles by people no more qualified to make that judgement than I.

[Forkboy]

65. maybe some are more qualified

like the ones who weren't "duped","mislead" etc.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

[Forkboy]

69. That's me

I've never voted for anything that lead to thousands dead.

[robsul82]

53. Is it me, or is Kerry a lanky Walter Sobchak?

For everyone who doesn't know (AND SHAME ON YOU!), Walter Sobchak, played by John Goodman, is a character from the 1998 film The Big Lebowski who is constantly screaming about and connecting EVERYTHING in life to his experiences in Vietnam. Weird. I just had that thought. And finally, The Dude, played by Jeff Bridges, screams, "Face it, Walter, this has NOTHING to do with Vietnam! Nothing ever does!"

Later.

RJS

[JVS]

58. I said that months ago.

It definitely isn't just you.

[robsul82]

60. Really? Damn!

"MY buddies didn't die face down in the MUCK so this little whore..."

Later.

RJS

[dreissig]

57. Remembering 1968

Attention, fellow Democrats who wish to regain the White House in November: don't nominate Kerry. Don't make the mistake the 1968 Democrats made in underestimating the anti-war Left.

I was among hundreds of thousands of protesters who marched in bitter cold to protest Bush's war. Kerry certainly had access to the same information as 23 senators who managed to vote against the IWR. I will never vote for John Kerry.

At the time the vote was taken there was no mistake made. Let there be no mistake made now that time has faded our memories. Kerry thought more of centrist voters than he did about us Democrats. He does not deserve our nomination.

Want to avoid a repeat of 1968? Don't nominate Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. We heard the conclusion, but you skipped the argument that lead to it.

What is your reasoning? Other than the IWR? Or is that the end-all and be-all of everything?

[Forkboy]

70. Or is that the end-all and be-all of everything?

It is if it's one of YOUR relatives that's dead.

[zoeyfong]

72. "Bush's" rush to war? How about Kerry's rush to war.

Kerry has a lot of nerve criticizing the "bush" war. This man has proven once and for all that he left his spine in vietnam. He couldn't wait to give his okay to send americans off to die unnessecarily, in war whose aftermath could not be "handled" a lot better than it has been, because the whole strategy was fatally flawed. The guerilla war and likely future civil war were as predictable as the sun shining. Besides that, the massive, gaping holes in the so-called "case" for war were visible from outer space, but kerry chose not to see. I would rather have a guy who screamed at a campaign rally with his finger on the button than a guy who can emotionlessly send young americans off to die if he thinks it will win him a few votes.

[sangh0]

73. Another genius who "knew" there were no WMD's

just arrived at DU.

[Poseidon]

74. Haha

nt