Kerry IWR Vote Justified. With Dean Loosing to Bush, Time For a 2nd Look

[WiseMen]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/opinion/polls/main590018.shtml

The latest CBS News Poll show a level of support for the Iraq war that most Democrats find disturbing: 62% believe the U.S. did the right thing. Only 22% of all registered voters want an anti-war nominee for President. With Dean loosing to Bush 35% to 55% in this latest poll, it is especially infuriating that vicious remarks from Dean supporters regarding Kerry’s IWR vote continue apace.

Infuriating, also, because these remarks show so little consciousness of the U.S. role in the region, so little guilt regarding complicity in the Iraqi tragedy, the millions dead, the abominable poisons that fell on the enemies of Saddam with U.S. acquiescence -- and for U.S. geopolitical goals. It is infuriating that these newly minted minions of a newly reborn peace-marcher can see only black or white. They cannot understand that, as much as it was atrociously criminal to do what the Bush did in 2003, it was just as evil to do nothing but maintain people-punishing sanctions while the multi-decade reign of atrocities of “our man in Bagdad” continued. There was a better way, and that is what John Kerry, and the French and the Germans, and the Russians and the Chinese, and the Canadians, and the Mexicans ….. voted for.

Here is my personal argument for why reasonable anti-war democrats should accept Kerry’s vote.

John Kerry, had little choice in his IWR vote. A “no” vote would have been a tactical coup to hold his anti-war base among Party activist. But, for reasons of presidential politics, national policy, as well as concerns for precedent, a “yes” vote on the Iraq War Resolution was the CORRECT VOTE for Kerry, presidential candidate and Senior Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Anti-war democrats should rally behind Kerry and accept his decision based on his long record as the “Tough Dove” – fiercely opposing the corrupt use of American military force, but unflinching when he though force was absolutely necessary. There still is a remote change that Kerry could resurrect his campaign in IOWA and give Dean a run for the nomination. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1223a.html
We need to try to GET OVER the IWR vote, and get behind the ONLY democratic leader prepared to win the White House and lead the nation in these times.

Presidential Politics

Since Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan over the Iran Hostages, Dovishness has spelled doom in national political campaigns. Clinton chose Gore over Kerry as his 1992 running mate, reportedly because Kerry had opposed the first Gulf War while Gore had joined the Republicans to support it. Clinton had to compensate for his weak-on-defense image.

Curiously enough, Kerry opposed the Gulf war because he saw U.S. militarization of the region as a potential long-term disaster. Kerry had led the investigation of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld duplicitous involvement in the Iran-Iraq War during the 80's and saw that the Gulf conflict was not just avoidable, but a war that should be avoided.

Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean, voted for that War: a war that desecrated the Muslim Holy Lands, turned the formerly pro-U.S. Islamic radicals into Anti-American Jihadist and led more than a decade of death and tragedy for people in the region. But that vote for war qualified him to be Vice President of the United States.

In 2000, once again, John Kerry was on the V.P. shortlist, but Gore picked the hawkish Joe “the unimpeachable” Lieberman.

So, no doubt Senator John “twice burned” Kerry, now a presidential candidate, was reluctant to play the dove on the IWR in the face of a purported threat of “mass destruction” from Saddam ‘the devil” Hussein. Kerry, the Senator, could have voted NO to register his distrust of Bush regime intentions. Kerry, the Presidential Candidate, had to give deference to the word of the sitting President and consider Democratic vulnerabilities in ’04. He had to vote “YES.”

Policy

For more than a decade Kerry had broken with liberal non-interventionism and argued for a proactive U.S. foreign policy to address world humanitarian crises, WMD proliferation, and global terrorism. In his book, “The New War,” (1997), Kerry pulls together insights from 3 terms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a decade as Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations. He argued forcefully for a realignment of U.S. military and intelligence posture to defend against new threats to U.S. global interests and national infrastructure and called for urgent preemptive executive action, warning: "It will take only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day."

On the campaign trail Kerry stated the policy position that led to his difficult IWR vote:

"Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. We need to take the third path in foreign policy – not a hard unilateralism or a soft isolationism – but a bold, progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity.

If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure, we won't win back the White House – and we won't deserve to."
-- John Kerry, December 16, 2003


Precedent

John Kerry led the anti-Vietnam war movement not as a pacifist, but as a war hero who, after 6 years in combat, came to question the morality of U.S. military tactics and the justice of American policy for the region. Since Vietnam, Kerry has supported the principled use of force and has backed U.S. military ventures, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, Somalia and Haiti. In Bosnia, Kerry supported covert action to oppose “ethnic cleansing.” In Kosovo, he went further than the Clinton administration, arguing (on the side of NATO Supreme Commander, Wesley Clark, incidentally) that ground troops should remain as an option for stopping former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's violent crackdown on the Serbian province's ethnic Albanian majority.

Precedent regarding Saddam Hussein could not be clearer. While, Kerry opposed the main resolution authorizing force in the Persian Gulf in 1991, he has since criticized both former President Clinton and his successor, President Bush, for missed opportunities to return inspectors to Iraq to end the risk of Iraqi WMD proliferation.
In 1998 Kerry joined John McCain to argue for forceful and effective action, covert or otherwise, to enforce U.N. inspections or remove the Saddam regime. In a Feb. 23, 1998 press release on the Iraq dilemma Kerry stated:

“This is the first issue of proliferation in the post Cold War period. It is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the Western world to make it clear that we cannot allow by any nation to possess and use those kinds of weapons.”

Given this precedent, a vote against Bush’s September, 2002, Iraq War Resolution, in this post-9/11 national security environment, would have exposed Kerry to a charge of enormous hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery.

In voting “yes” on the IWR Kerry said he had to trust the President of the United States when he said that war would be “a last resort”. At the time of the vote, in a substantial, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said he would strongly opposed any unilateral movement to war and that he did not believe that Saddam’s threat was yet imminent. He kept is word and led opposition to unilateral action during the U.N. debates, Bush’s “rush to war,” and the administration’s duplicitous and inept foreign policy.

Conclusion

John Kerry has been handed the lot of a fighter for most of his adult life. With his vote for the IWR Kerry risked his presumptive right to lead a campaign for which he as prepared for a lifetime -- a campaign to overthrow the Bush regime.

At the same time, John Kerry know that that same vote is part of a necessary armor against the republican onslaught, should he, against all odds, end up as the standard-bearer for the Party in the ’04 election.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Kerry has innocent blood on his hands

I don't care if 90% of the American people think that Bush is a genius and that his war in Iraq was righteous and made us safer. The war was still wrong, just as Kerry was wrong to vote for IWR!

I will remind you that like many Americans today, the Germans of the Third Reich were also in denial about the true nature of their Nazi leaders. Many of them did not want to accept reality, not even when US troops took them to the concentration camps and forced to see the horrors they had denied existed.

Wes Clark is better qualified for President, and in the hero department, than John Kerry!

[WiseMen]

2. We all Agree with Kerry's Opposition to the WAR. The issue is the IWR Vote

Kerry has said repeatedly, before the vote, during the vote,
after the vote, that his opposed going to War except as an
absolute last resort. He opposed Bush war and the occupation following. Kerry's positions is identical to Clark's (and one
of Dean's two alternative positions) except that Clark didn't have
to cast a vote.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Clark didn't believe Bush, Kerry did!

Kerry went so far as to say that we were safer after Saddam's capture. Kerry's recent comments are evidence that his contorted explanations for his IWR vote were a feeble attempt to make himself appear against the war. I believe that Kerry voted for IWR because he believes in the PNAC agenda as much as Joe Biden and Paul Wolfowitz did.

[WiseMen]

6. Clark was Neither a Senator NOR a Presidential Candidate. No Comparison.

Kerry had to face the tough decision. He wanted to say "screw you" to
Bush, but he believes in a strong Presidency for Himself, as he
did for Clinton. He has said repeatedly that he believes the
Commander-In-Chief has the inherent authority to act in defence
of the nation under imminent threat.

[IndianaGreen]

35. What "imminent attack"?

Any nation has the right of self-defense. The problem is that Iraq, which had been under 24/7 bombing of the US since the end of the Gulf War under the unilateral pretext of the "no-fly zones" posed no threat to the US, much less a threat of an imminent attack.

If Kerry claims that he acted in the belief that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, then this shows a far serious error in judgment on his part than just voting for IWR because he followed the polls.

Either way you look at it, Kerry was not there when the country needed him most!

[Scott Lee]

62. so once again, an Establishment candidate votes to save his ass

Like that is supposed to surprise us.

This is the driving force behind the deconstruction of the losing DLC paradigm.

[sandnsea]

7. Clark said it too

Clark said we're safer after Saddam's capture. Clark believed something must be done about Saddam at some point. He did not disbelieve the intelligence about the danger of Saddam. Nobody thought Saddam was not a danger to the region and the U.S. Clark only thought we should finish Afghanistan and al qaeda before becoming involved in Iraq.

And Biden and Kerry do not, did not, believe in military dominance as a solution to the world's problems. That is totally false. Deciding to resolve the Iraq problem does not equate to global military domination.

This is just the most sickening time I have ever gone through. We have a chance to change everything, literally everything. Everything we want is what John Kerry stands for and always has. Every liberal absolutely knows it.

Any one of these candidates, as President, would have to confront Saddam if nothing had been done. It would have to be done at some point. That's the biggest lie of these primaries, bigger than Bush's lies. The intent of the vote wasn't anything that any other candidate didn't support. Getting inspectors into Iraq. Nobody disagrees on inspectors.

Bush took us to war on lies. Not John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or John Edwards or anybody else.

And he gets away with his lies because the Democrats would rather use this vote as primary fodder instead of joining together and forcing the lies of the actual war right down Bush's throat. It's got to be the stupidest move made by the Democratic Party, probably ever.

[Donna Zen]

77. Very astute observations

for the most part. Although, I do think that Kerry would have supported the Carnegie (French) solution, as did Clark, of coersive inspections. Clark's big difference is that he thought the war complicated and distracted the US from the conflict and nation building in Afghanistan. He testified to congress that while Iraq was a "failed state" we had a 5-10 year window to do something about it.

That said, I disagree with this statement:

I believe that Kerry voted for IWR because he believes in the PNAC agenda as much as Joe Biden and Paul Wolfowitz did.

Biden, almost but he would have accepted and supported other solutions, but Kerry, no way. Lieberman: yes.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. if Kerry was opposed to going to war except for the last resort

then he should have insisted that the bill he voted for force Bush to meet all of Kerrys requirements. He had a choice, he did not have to vote for that bill.

Whether Clark or Dean had to vote for the bill is besides the point. Kerry had an oportunity to do the right thing and he didn't do the right thing. Now his whole career is being judged on that one vote. Sometimes that is just the way it goes.

[Monte Carlo]

23. Kerry was told Saddam had the ability to hit the East Coast...

... by Rumsfeld and others at a Pentagon briefing, and it is not easy to discard official information from the President of the United States, whoever that may be. In matters of national security, it is always best to err on the side of caution.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Many Germans believed that Poland had attacked Germany in 1939

it is not easy to discard official information from the President of the United States, whoever that may be. In matters of national security, it is always best to err on the side of caution.

We know the following speech was full of lies! This is the speech that Hitler gave on the day German troops invaded Poland. Like most Americans today, most Germans in 1939 believed the "official information" because they thought that on "matters of national security, it is always best to err on the side of caution."

Remember Bush's State of the Union Address back in January and the rousing applause he got, from both sides of the aisle, when he railed against Iraq and mentioned the uranium from Niger? Here is the same scenario, same plot, different setting and cast of characters. As Bush did in SOTUS, the victim is portrayed as the aggressor, while the aggressor is shown as acting in self-defense after exhausting all avenues for peace.


Address by Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of the Reich, before the Reichstag, September 1, 1939.

Deputies, if the German Government and its Leader patiently endured such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British Government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Polish Government to conduct serious negotiations with us.

These proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change.

<snip>

This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5.45 A.M. we have been returning the fire, and from now on bombs will be met by bombs. Whoever fight with poison gas will be fought with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect that we shall do the same. I will continue this struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured.

For six years now I have been working on the building up of the German defenses. Over 90 millions have in that time been spent on the building up of these defense forces. They are now the best equipped and are above all comparison with what they were in 1914. My trust in them is unshakable. When I called up these forces and when I now ask sacrifices of the German people and if necessary every sacrifice, then I have a right to do so, for I also am to-day absolutely ready, just as we were formerly, to make every possible sacrifice.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gp2.htm

[Monte Carlo]

65. Well great for them, but it's irrelevant to this situation.

In matters of national security, it is better to err on the side of caution, and that was to give the President authorization to go to war. So spare me the Nazi rant - it's overused.

[IndianaGreen]

67. 1930s Germany parallels the present situation in America!

And the state of denial of many Americans about the true nature of the Bush regime mirrors the denial of the Third Reich Germans.

People will go on dying unnecessarily in Iraq, and elsewhere, because of the corwardice of many of our elected officials in opposing the budding tyrant in the White House.

[Terwilliger]

57. he should have been like his fellow Dems that voted NO

I dont understand why people don't get that...THEY voted NO!! Kerry should have too.

[izzie]

11. I go with you on most of this. Unsure on Clark,

It just maybe that Bush will have another term. I see no reason to vote for a man that sold my war rights out even if he had been in Vietnam.

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. so...this one issue is enough for this country to suffer four more years

talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

how many more will die if the bush agenda is enabled?

here we are...still fighting about the war instead of looking at the reality that those who want an anti war candidate number only 22% YET
WHO ARE WE NOMINATING?

Mr 22% himself.

we are sooo screwed

[Sensitivity]

41. Clinton said Voters Prefer "strong and wrong" to "weak and right." Too Bad

[lcordero]

3. supporting an unprovoked, aggressive, invading and looting

war based on a lie isn't acceptable.
As far as I am concerned, continuing the occupation of Iraq IS supporting the unprovoked, aggressive, invading and looting war...and IS pro-war.

[WiseMen]

5. I AGREE. And Only Kucinich, Kerry and Sharpton are for Quick End of Occup

[Raya]

86. Kerry was viewed as the Fiercest Critic of Bush's Warmongering, Remember?

[mouse7]

8. Third time this thread posted. Polling Data still skewed third time

Dean's Dem preference is 10-18 points off the national averages. A full half of his support is missing. The poll itself says the +/- is greater than normal.

You can post it 8 more times, and it's still going to be as messed up the 11th time as it was the first time.

[imhotep]

9. Kerry is done

why waste energy defending or criticizing him?

[Padraig18]

10. Sen. Kerry had the same opportunity to vote 'no' on IWR that 22 Dems did

He also had the same info, and 23 Dems, including some who were running for re-election (like Mr. Durbin), voted against the IWR.

Sorry, Senator Kerry--- I'll support you for Prez shopuld you get the nod, but no way in Hell will I support you in the primary; you had my support but threw it away with your IWR vote.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. Kerry's political career hung on the balance...but that is not as

important as the thousands of lives which also hung in the balance.

I remember watching the movie 13 Days. It illustrates the difference between one JFK from Ma and another JFK from Ma. One held out when we knew there were missiles in Cuba pointed at us. He knew war was the last resort and he refused to go to war until every last peaceful option was exhausted. He probably lost his life over that decision coupled with his planned pull out of Viet Nam.
I don't feel sorry for John Kerry. He will retire to a life of wealth and privilege most people never even have the opportunity to achieve.

[Iverson]

26. Oh, good. Lack of principles is admirable.

Sorry, but your argument suffers from the warrant that pandering to warmongers is the right thing to do if enough yahoos like it.

I will never believe that. I call that cowardice.

[Padraig18]

40. I'm not 'pandering to warmongers', Iverson.

I am making a strategic decision in the GE, should JK get the nomination; even with his IWR vote, he would be a far, FAR more progressive President than anything * could even approach on his best day.

[Iverson]

45. I responded to the wrong note, Padraig18.

That totally was not directed at you. My apologies for the error. It was intended for the original poster.

Here, have some slivovitz in a coffee cup as a peace offering.



:donut:

[Padraig18]

46. hehe!

's OK, Iverson! :hi:

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. glad to here you say this. n/t

[Raya]

76. This is wierd. I didn't read anything in the post about "pandering"

The has made a reasonable explanation of kerry's vote, like it
or not. Just because he admits Kerry may have had some "political
consideration" doesn't say he thinks kerry was pandering to
"warmongers." At worst he was taking typical American public into account. I've heard Kerry slam Bush, Rummy etal as much as anyone.

[blm]

48. yet, you're happy with Dean's proresolution support....interesting.

Because that is what it all comes down to...some people were prowar, some antiwar, and some supported resolutions that allowed Bush to determine use of force.

Hypocrisy and its brother, selectivesanctimony.

[quaker bill]

13. 2 problems

The IWR vote resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 20,000 to 50,000m Iraqi civilians, and the killing is not done yet.

The IWR vote was reportedly based on 'trusting the President'. This represents a huge lapse in character judgement. I am convinced that there are in the wider world many leaders that are brighter and harder to fathom than Bush*.

If the prevarications and manipulations of this President were sufficient to mislead Mr. Kerry, what other misadventures lie in our future with him at the helm?

[edzontar]

15. Kerry made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

It was a tragic miscalculation on his part.

He lost me when he cast that vote.

Which, by the way, was a blank check for the Bushwar.

PS: And Dean was right when he said we were not any safer, as the news shows us every day.

[November 2004]

36. Question:

How would Dean have voted had he been in the Senate?

We hear him, but we don't really know.

This is really quite unfair. Whoever heard of taking the word of a politician? :evilgrin:

[edzontar]

52. Academic--he opposed the war on reasonable grounds...

Good enough for me

[WiseMen]

82. And Dean Supported War Vote on 1991 Which Killed perhaps 200,000

And subsequently starved 1/2 million children, defiled Muslim
Holy Lands, and generated anti-American jihad.

Should we say Thank You to Mr. Dean? And call him a Killer? No! Blood is on all our hands
and George Bush Sr. and Saddam Hussein are the main culprits, not Dean.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

17. News from the IWR front

"In the 24 hours up to midday on Christmas Day, four more American soldiers were killed, three by a roadside bomb near Samarra, which US forces hoped they had pacified after a series of aggressive raids last week, and another by a bomb in Baghdad. Four Iraqis, including a 13-year-old girl, were killed by a suicide bomber in his car who detonated explosives outside a Kurdish office in Arbil, while another two civilians were killed in Baghdad by a bomb apparently intended for an American patrol.

At the Baghdad city mortuary, the medical director, Dr Faik Amin Bakr, told me that up to 20 dead, all of them Iraqis and most of them victims of violence, had been received on Christmas Day morning."

The vote justified this.

[WiseMen]

27. Iraq War NOT Justified! But, Threat of Force Always A part of Diplomacy

[quaker bill]

43. Not for the Germans, the Japanese, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans

and virtually any other country with a small military. Most countries have no credible threat of military force. How do they possibly get by?

Threats of force are the direct result of a failure of dimplomacy. Soldiers are not diplomats. They just break and kill things.

You are correct, the war was not justified. Niether was voting for it.

There were no WMD. Bob Graham got it, Robert Byrd got it, Dennis Kucinich got it. Where was John Kerry?

<<<snip>>>

Kerry was scornful, for instance, of the Grenada invasion, launched by Reagan the previous October to evacuate US medical students after a Marxist-backed military coup on the Caribbean island.
At one point he likened it to "Boston College playing football against the Sisters of Mercy." Earlier, Kerry told The Cape Codder newspaper:

"The invasion of Grenada represents the Reagan policy of substituting public relations for diplomatic relations . . . no substantial threat to US interests existed and American lives were not endangered . . . The invasion represented a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation. The invasion only served to heighten world tensions and further strain brittle US/Soviet and North/South relations."

Campaigning now for president, however, Kerry is rewriting that history. As he accuses President George W. Bush of hamhanded diplomacy before the invasion of Iraq, Kerry often lists Grenada among the US military incursions he says he has supported.

"I was dismissive of the majesty of the invasion of Grenada," Kerry says now. "But I basically was supportive. I never publicly opposed it."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

More of the same??

[WiseMen]

49. I refer to the vast strech of HUMAN HISTORY. Even today, all countries you

list are part of regional or strategic alliances (NATO, OAS, OAU, etc)
that use the threat of force as part of diplomacy.

I strongly support the global movement (to some degree championed
by the EU and the Non-Aligned movement) to remove military force from
the equation of deplomacy. But that is not the current reality of
U.N. charter, principles of International Law, etc.

[quaker bill]

56. Your paralell between the above and IWR is completely lame

IWR authorized unilateral pre-emptive war in the complete absence of an imminent threat. This is a clear violation of international law, and IWR authorized it.

We belong to strategic alliances (NATO and the UN) but we were unwilling to abide by their judgement, and IWR authorized the President to conduct war in the absence of a multilateral consensus of it's necessity.

Further, most nations do not belong to such strategic alliances and those that do generally do not use them in this manner. When was the last time that NATO threatened a pre-emptive war for regime change in the utter absence of an imminent threat?

When was the last time Sweeden threatened to conduct unilateral pre-emptive regime change on another soveriegn nation?

Didn't Saddam conduct a unilateral pre-emptive regime change by military force in Kuwait 12 years ago? I am sure, to his mind, he was only being diplomatic. After all, it was only a little border dispute. I think we objected to this, if memory serves correctly.

How many other countries should be granted the sort of license IWR granted Bush*?

The use of military force as a tool of diplomacy is a neo-con premise. We should reject it and those who support it.

[Padraig18]

63. A young Illinois congressman once observed:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" --

--- Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 158 years ago

Something Kerry supporters should bear in mind before they attack ANY candidate who opposed the IWR, as adopted.

[Donna Zen]

79. Correct!

And the rule is: once force is on the table....

I don't know if many understand the concept of coercive diplomacy. Nevertheless, the worst part of this disaster is junior's putting force on the table before any diplomacy. Gads--this administration is a total nightmare.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "Justified" - only in the most cynical sense.

Your assessment of the "reasons" that Kerry voted for the "war" is correct. Your reasoning that the vote itself was correct is wrong.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards, voted for the IWR as an act of cynical political expediency. The fact that 23 other senators voted against it, despite the obvious political risks, counters your assertion that it was necessary to do so.

A short translation of your post:

Kerry (and, Edwards and Gephardt) voted for the IWR knowing that their vote would give BushCorp a full green light to send our military to kill thousands of people. They were perfectly willing to have people killed to advance their political career.

Kerry, Gep, and Edwards have spent most of the following months trying to justify their votes.

Result: Kerry, Gep and Edwards are about to become ex-candidates because they have displayed themselves to be political hacks of the most unethical kind.

Note: I have left Lieberman out of the above because he has stated that he backed shrub because he agrees with him rather than saying that it was a result of Bush's lying or the result of political "pragmatism".

[Fabio]

31. Please provide evidence

that Kerry "voted for the IWR as an act of cynical political expediency." That's quite a charge. And in my opinion, nothing but opinion which should be stated as such.

[CTLawGuy]

42. Ill take a crack at this

he voted for the war while saying Bush shouldnt go to war.

He was up for reelection less than a month later.

His tortured justifications for his vote in the months following the war convinced few people that he was being principled.

When the war was going badly, he criticzed it, but after Saddam was captured, he became proud of his vote and criticized Dean for opposing the war.

Bush pushed the IWR vote for before the election because he was counting on people like Kerry, who were so terrified of his popularity they'd dare not oppose him, to get this blank check passed.

Finally, Kerry has a DLC-influenced, establishment campaign strategy who are making the same mistakes they made in the massacre of 2002.

[Fabio]

74. Incorrect

First off, none of that is proof that he was being politically calculated. That's called conjecture. Furthermore,

he voted for the IWR, but he consistently said Bush should not RUSH to war.

Yes, he was up for reelection a month later...unopposed.

He has critized Bush's foreign policy vis a vis Iraq consistently since the president started moving unilaterally (ie Feb 2003) and he NEVER said he was proud of his IWR vote. Ever.

[Sensitivity]

85. I Think Clark was Right. Let's stop arguing the Vote. Agree War was Wrong

[IndianaGreen]

38. I agree with you about Lieberman

Lieberman wanted Saddam taken out regardless of the circumstances. I won't mention the other country in the Middle East that wanted Saddam out for the same reasons Lieberman did.

Lieberman is right when he chided Kerry for wanting it both ways!

[Raven]

19. Here's my question,

and forgive me if it has been asked before. With the depth of feeling against Kerry in this thread and generally on this board, what will you do if he gets the nomination? Some of you have made him out to be almost as bad as Bush. Will you sit out the election or go for a third party candidate?

On the reference to the other JFK from MA, let me point out that he got us into Vietnam in the first place. I agree that he was trying to get us out before he was killed, but he sent the "advisors" into that country in the first place. So I think he had some blood on his hands too.

I plan to vote for Dean but I will refrain from slashing other Dems in this race because one of them will ultimately be standing against Bush. I hope there will be something left of the candidate who survives but if some of the discussion in DU reflects the larger Dem party I fear we will have devoured our own...yet again.

[Jerseycoa]

20. I would vote for Kerry nt

[edzontar]

21. I would vote for Kerry

I am disappointed in him.

I do not hate him.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. Eisenhower got us into Viet Nam and .............

There was very little blood being spilled due to our involvement in Viet Nam in the early 60s/late 50s. It was to Kennedy's credit that he saw what was coming and made a good decision to get out of Viet Nam(if we believe that was what he had planned). It is to Kerry's discredit that he saw what was coming in Iraq and made a political decision. But that is the story of his career.
In any case your question is moot. Kerry will not get the nomination. I think anyone who has every read more than two of my posts knows where I stand on ABB.

[Raven]

24. Yes, Ike put his toe in the water but

JFK certainly increased our involvement. I don't know how much blood is "very little" but I do know that there were many deaths in Vietnam of civilians and advisors in the early 60's. They were not reported. And I don't think my question should be dismissed as moot...maybe after Iowa and NH, but not now.

[WiseMen]

28. Kerry Voted AGAINST the Gulf War: You Saing Good to Fight for Sheiks but

bad, post/911, to be concerned about security of U.S. citizens.

Kerry was at the front line opposing U.S. involvement in
Iran-Irac wars, in Central America etc. Give some respect.

[edzontar]

30. That is what made his IWR vote so disappointing...

I am forced to conclude that this was a political decision, not a moral one.

I think it was nothing short of tragic.

[blm]

51. Dean's support for illegal wars in Central America is tragic.

Or would that have been a political decision because he didn't want to be seen as the antiwar candidate?

Or maybe he wanted to appeal to Reagan-Bush voters?

Or maybe because even after everything we now know about those illegal wars, Dean believes that covert wars started by elite forces of capitalism have legitimate value?

[Terwilliger]

58. or Kerry screwed the pooch and made the wrong choice

why do you insist on harping on the negatives of others instead of the positives of Kerry...is that because there are no positives?

[IndianaGreen]

59. blm is a strong supporter of John Kerry

Correct me if I am wrong, blm. Like many of Kerry's supporters, she thinks it is unfair that Kerry's distinguished 20-year long record of being a champion of liberal causes is being ignored by people like us on account of one vote. Blm also will consistently defend the IRW vote as one that required Bush to go to the UN and to get inspectors in Iraq. From blm's point of view, Kerry wanted to give Bush authority to go to war, but only at the last resort. Blm will also say that Bush assured Kerry and others that he would use the UN and would not use force unless absolutely necessary.

Blm's arguments in support of Kerry have been repeated by Kerry himself, and by many other Kerry supporters.

The defense of Kerry's vote on IWR is an honorable one. Kerry supporters also have a point, it is unfair to judge Kerry's entire record on the basis of the one vote.

That's my take on blm's honorable defense of Kerry.

I agree with blm that it is unfair to judge Kerry's entire record on the basis of his IWR vote. My disagreement with blm is that I think it is even more unfair to fail to hold Kerry accountable for the consequences of the IWR vote: 500 dead Americans, over 10,000 dead Iraqis, untold wounded on both sides, the destruction of Iraqi society, and the cruel "iron-fisted" US occupation of a sovereign nation.

The fact that Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham were not seduced by Bush's lies on WMD and voted against IWR, undercuts Kerry's defense of his vote.

[Scott Lee]

70. Something for which I'll bet he daily knocks his head against the wall...

I wouldn't want to be John Kerry at this point. I really wouldn't.

[Raya]

81. BLM. Do you have a link for this. Did Dean Support Right Wing is Cent Am.

[Scott Lee]

61. But he voted FOR something worse.....and he got it.

Invasion, occupation. The worst of American imperialist behavior and John Kerry signed on the dotted line.

That's the legacy he's stuck with, and it's going to put a stake through the heart of his campaign.

[Fabio]

32. Kennedy got us into Vietnam

in a military capacity.

[Donna Zen]

78. Actually it was Nixon who got you into Vietnam

He was sent over to verify the vote. Instead, he participated in a cover up (one of his first) of a rigged election, and came home to declare "all's well."

Kinda' sad irony.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Kerry did not get us out of Vietnam

Kerry was not the only founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Millions of Americans demonstrated against the Vietnam War.

Polls consistently showed that most of the public hated the peace demonstrators.

What got us out of Vietnam was weariness. It wasn't Tet. It wasn't the death toll. It wasn't the Kent State massacre (a majority of Americans sided with the Ohio National Guard against the students). In the end, the American people got tired of the endless upheaval and wanted peace of mind. What better way to have peace of mind than to turn your back on the mess one created and pretend it never happened in the first place.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. I will not vote for Kerry - or Gep, Edwards or Lieberman.

Fortunately, the possibility of having to choose between the DumbSon and the 4 collaborators in the slaughter looks remote.

If the Democrats are bamboozled into selecting one of the four, I'll be voting anti-war. It just won't be for a Democrat.

[Padraig18]

50. I will vote for Sen. Kerry in the GE

His IWR vote only makes a difference in whom I support in the primary; should JK gain the nomination, I will max out my donations, ring doorbells, telephone bank, drive a car on Election Day, etc.--- in short, anything I can humanly do to help get him elected President.

:)

[CWebster]

25. don't be silly

It is over for Kerry. But he would be a better act than Dean? C'mon, he hasn't got a hope.

[AWD]

29. Hey, it's not over for Kerry

He still has that important race for 6th place with CMB to try.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

34. my kinda guy

Say, AWD, where do I contribute to your campaign again?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

47. Good for you. The last post I criticised someone for such drivel

got deleted. It's trash talk and I don't see where it becomes candidates for any office let alone congress.

RE: Wisemen- he is very wise. This is a good post. Kerry voted as he thought right. He has been consistent in his views on Iraq and Saddam, and he has been a consistent fighter for liberals throughout his career. Of anyone running he deserves our support the most. He has paid his dues and then some.

[Scott Lee]

71. Oh so you mean Kerry is "Entitled"

Thank you very much. This is the problem we face with an entitled aristocracy in the Democratic leadership circles.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

75. when so called "reds" such as you reject John Kerry for Dean

then we are in trouble. Admit it- Dean's just a tool to you.

[IndianaGreen]

80. I see the ghost of Roy Cohn rising from his grave

when so called "reds" such as you reject John Kerry for Dean then we are in trouble. Admit it- Dean's just a tool to you.

I don't know how else to describe a post that uses language like the one you used. Are we to engage in witchhunts now? An Iraqi version of "Who lost Korea?"

I see the ghost of Roy Cohn rising from his grave.

[retyred]

68. Your right

Kerry could be a better politician than dean, but few could be a better act!


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Sensitivity]

87. Are you being sarcastic? Dean is just not as smooth, but he is sincere

[IndianaGreen]

53. Kerry should be apologizing to the families of the dead GIs

This is one example, out of nearly 500, of what the IWR vote accomplished for American families:


Ben Colgan holds his daughter Page
as his wife, Jill, holds their other
daughter, Grace. Jill gave birth to
their third daughter on December 19th.
(Colgan family photo)

Published on Friday, December 26, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Antiwar Family's Conflict
Fervent peace activists sort through complex emotions as they mourn a son killed in Iraq. He died a hero, they say -- a parents' contradiction.

by Tomas Alex Tizon

KENT, Wash. — Joe Colgan glances at it almost every time he walks into his bedroom: a cardboard box sitting inconspicuously in a corner. It's a care package he had prepared for his son Ben.

Inside are items Ben requested: a couple of books, pistachios, canned salmon, beef jerky and a big bag of candy from Costco. Ben liked to pass out candy to children in the street. Joe assembled the package on Nov. 1, not knowing that on the same day, 6,800 miles away in Baghdad, Ben, a second lieutenant in the Army, would be killed by a roadside bomb.

More than a month and a half later, Joe still doesn't know what to do with the box. "I know I should give it away," he says, "but I can't seem to let it go yet."

The grief is still settling, like a slow sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and somehow, for Joe, the package is something to hold on to. In the midst of their anguish, Joe and Patricia Colgan have clung tightly to one other thing: the idea that their son Ben died a hero.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1226-02.htm

[polpilot]

73. Kerry may apologize yet. He just needs to get his polling data first.

Dean '04...

[batman]

54. so kerry is supportive if the irw initiative this week?

i thought he said just last week that he and dean agreed due to biden lugar.

[Scott Lee]

60. John Kerry, the on again off again warrior

Dollars to donuts says that Kerry rues the day he voted for IWR. It's now around his neck like a cement tire, and the boat is sinking.

I don't really feel that angry at John, no, mostly pity at the new Edward The Confessor who sees only failure around him, and doesn't know why.

[quaker bill]

64. Just for fun a little snippet

In his zeal to keep pace with Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament, Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

On again off again is the name of his game.

[Scott Lee]

72. Great stuff. Thank you for that.

[Sensitivity]

69. If he wins the nomination, he has my vote, IWR or not

[Brian_Expat]

83. There's just one problem with your logic

The latest polls show Dean and Clark tied for first place, losing to Bush seven points each.

Kerry is way, way, behind, losing to Bush by over 12 points. If you're going to argue that Kerry is "more electable" than Dean or Clark, you'll have to use arguments other than the latest polls.

Disclaimer: I am a Dean supporter.

[stickdog]

84. Yes. Kerry's IWR vote justifies

his bottom feeder standing in the Democratic primaries.

[poskonig]

88. I'm glad I'm *not* voting for Kerry this primary.

Democrats should defend liberals and their ideas, not the mistakes and cronyism of the Bush administration.

If we don't draw the line on Iraq, where do we draw the line? V-Chips, perhaps? Kerry is so inspiring.