I could vote for Kerry in order to beat Bush BUT

[mikehiggins]

I could never work for Kerry because he voted to give a neocon puppet the power to send American troops into harm's way.

Worse, he claims he never suspected that Bush had already intended to push the war forward, regardless of opposition. I knew that. Millions and millions of others knew that. How on earth could Kerry expect us to believe that he did not know exactly what he was doing when he voted Aye on that resolution. I find that unbeliveable.

I believe he did it because he did not have the courage to do what was right, at the final moment when the choice was put starkly before him. I believe that his vote came down to being afraid to be seen as pro-terrorist and anti-American in 2004 during this very campaign.

I think he voted as he did out of political calculation, and that if he had foreseen what Howard Dean did, he would have been the most virulent opponent to the war to be found in this nation. But he didn't and he wasn't and he isn't.

I cannot work for Kerry because he is exactly what is wrong with the so-called leadership of this country. Everything he has done has been done with a fine cat's whisker sensibility to what best benefits his own political career. Those who talk of his high ethical standards and political courage are remembering a brave young officer who stood up to the establishment against an unjust war.

Like a lot of us, that young man has been separated from the man you now see by much more than years.

The only reason I would vote FOR him is because I believe George Bush to be a clear and present danger to our American way of life.

The imminent threat to our freedom is in the Oval Office today.

I think I harbor no illusions, however. If elected, John Kerry will simply replace George Bush and buy us a little time. He will not stem the tide. He doesn't have the sand in his character to do so.

[blm]

1. Do you hate the Constitution for giving Bush war powers, too?

.

[Democrats unite]

3. Would you like to explain here?

The constitution does not give Bush war Powers! The Constitution Gives the power of war to Congress! Please post facts here. The war powers act of 1973 is not part of the Constitution! And in case anyone is interested in learning about the war powers act, here it is.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

[blm]

16. The War Powers Act...

That's what I should have said.

But, the point remains the same. Hate the War Powers Act.

Lobby to change it, but, don't blame Kerry for it.

[mikehiggins]

8. Just skimming through the Constitution, I don't find the section that

gives the President the power to declare OR wage war without the specific and explicit consent of Congress.

The way in which Congress has soiled its pants in its efforts to give those powers to the President is one of the main reasons we have the problems we face today.

Whether it is the Tonkin Bay or Iraq, Congress did not and does not have to balls to stand up to the President and demand he make his case for war.

Congress is a "courage free" zone except for a handful of patriots like Dennis Kuchinich.

[nomaco-10]

17. You didn't find it....

cause it wasn't there. You are exactly right. People like Kerry voted to give the smirking chimp a blank check and dictator status to wage war on a whim. Robert Byrd, Ted kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and a few others, had the courage and insight to vote NO, they will always have my utmost admiration.

[gristy]

2. Nice post.

You write very well.

[MasonJar]

4. Wow! It must be awesome to see into another's soul. We know

exactly what Bush is. We all have to fight to the death to keep him from being elected by the sheeple, many of whom still think Bush is one of the boys. They believe his lies, so we must be strong together. The earth itself might not survive another Bush term.

[killbotfactory]

5. The Democratic party is using fear of Bush to promote a mediocre candidate

Who is willing to sell us out whenever politiically expedient.

I'm not going to vote FOR Kerry, I'll just be voting against Bush.

Kerry is still better than Bush, but that is damning praise.

[blm]

18. Yeah, hate the one guy who exposed more government corruption than

ALL the other candidates PUT TOGETHER.

Unless you root FOR government corruption, then I can see why you'd be unhappy with Kerry. Reagan and Bush and Ollie North and Elliot Abrams and Caspar Weinberger, et al don't like him much, either.

[stickdog]

26. Kerry was picked to head those investigations because

he was a safe, insider choice.

It's the same exact reason he was picked to meekly lose the election to Bush this November.

[library_max]

27. Any support for those assertions?

You do have facts to back all that up, I suppose?

[x-g.o.p.er]

6. I did vote for Bush and WILL work for Kerry because

Whether he voted with or against "that neocon puppet", it would not have mattered. We still would have gone to war.

As a man who has seen the horrors of war, maybe he did believe that Bush would exhaust all options. Who in their right mind would have thought that the President would have used war as a first option?

As far as the vote, maybe, just maybe, he was putting country above party, and trying to show the world we as a country were united. We weren't Democrats, we weren't Republicans, we were Americans, standing as one.

I will work for Kerry because he was man enough to say that he had made the wrong choice, and now he going to do his damndest to fix what someone else f****d up.

That young man with high ethical standards is still there, and he will do what is right and what is best for this country.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Why do you trust Clark?

He may say the things that you want to hear, but what are the actions he's taken that show that he means what he says?

For instance we all know that advised voting yes on IWR and praised Bush's invasion of Iraq in early April of last year. Why do you believe what he is saying now, instead of the things he said then?

[Democrats unite]

10. Oh the spin! That must be a maytag!

[mikehiggins]

12. I trust Clark because I can see how thoroughly the right wing and

the media hate him.

Every time Novak calls him a jerk, or _ucker Carlson calls him creepy or Bill Kristol calls him a loose cannon or Sean Hannity says he's crazy or any of the enemy attack him, it confirms my trust in him.

Simple as that.

As to the war in Iraq, when invited to testify before Congress Clark says he opposed the war.

At least that's what Richard Perle said Clark did. To me that is more telling than any pile-on of newswhores or copy-readers on the little glass screen.

These people aren't journalists, after all. They just play them on TV.


(edited for clarity regarding Perle)

[BootinUp]

14. You are mistaken friend

In that article Clark praised the military execution, the troops. He commented on Bushes and Blairs resolve. HE QUESTIONED the political strategy and its effect on the region. You can use that article to smear Clark if you desire. Instead, why not read his testimony on record (relevant section below):

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY


BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

.....snip

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

[hippywife]

35. Commented??

He commented on Bushes and Blairs resolve. HE QUESTIONED the political strategy and its effect on the region.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

He didn't "comment" on their resolve, he praised it. And notice he didn't include himself in his statement regarding their opponents. He fully puts himself outside that group by his choice of words.

<snip>
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."
<snip>


And this first paragraph is the scariest, most delusional, most gleeful "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" statement of all:

<snip>
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."
<snip>

As with the rest of his article, he makes it painfully clear that it's okay to kick little brown ass around the world as long as it is done properly. He also praises it as motivation for other countries to step into line or we're coming for you next. He never calls this action what it was...illegal, illegitmate, imperialistic.

<snip>
"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War."
<snip>

WTF??

This article shows him to be every bit as delusional as Bush when it comes to this action.

With regard to his September 2002 testimony he stands with the Bush administration in its ascertains with regards to WMD:

<snip>
"He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities."
<snip>
"In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law."
<snip>

Granted he does say over again that the case should be made before the U.N. but:

<snip>
"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear."
<snip>

Which leads to the fact that he still believed, wrongly, this was a matter of defence that should be acted upon unilateraly whether the world at large ultimately agreed with it or not. He believed just as the Bush administration did, just not according to the same time line.

The U.N. said the evidence presented did not support a pre-emptive attack, as did 133 members of the U.S. House (126 Dems and 6 Republicans)led in their dissent by Congressman Kucinich, as did 21 Senators (20 Dems and one Republican) led by Sen. Robert Byrd, as did 15 million protesters around the world. Period. And they were the ones that were right.

[bigtree]

9. Was opposing Bush enough? Was that Congress's only responsibility?

Was opposing Bush enough? Was that Congress's only responsibility?



My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into war. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exaggerated the threat from Iraq, to the phony information that his administration hawked in secret briefings with Congress. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

Congress is the lever. The hold the purse strings. But the president has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for committing forces. If Bush can disregard Congress's mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable when the president ignores the law? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

The resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table.

That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

Why did Congress trust the president? What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law?

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.


The rest of the argument (as if repeating the charges and answering them again will put an end to these circular arguments over the IWR vote.):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=292422

[Democrats unite]

11. You either opposed Bush Or enabled Bush

There is no middle ground.

[bigtree]

15. That's simply untrue

I wouldn't follow anyone in government or out who thinks their only responsibility there was to oppose Bush.

These Senators were also tasked with ensuring the nation's safety. I think it is sophmoric to assume that the only issue in crafting a resolution that was designed to provide the threat of force to get Saddam to comply with the U.N. effort (1441) that we had initiated, was to oppose Bush.

If John Kerry, who was no stranger to Saddams complicity in violent repression, felt that there was a chance that Saddam had the capability to exploit chemical, nuclear, or biological material then he was justified in authorizing the threat of force to back up a U.N. effort to make Saddam accountable through the Security Council.

John Kerry did feel that the material presented passed enough of a test to mandate the return to the U.N. to effect the return of the U.N. inspectors. That's what he voted for in his resolution. That's what he said before and after the IWR vote.

Most here feell that they can disregard his statements and claim that he voted for war. That is dishonest.

You have to come to the position that he was lying about his rational for the vote in the extensive, detailed statements he made on the Senate floor before the vote. http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

To say that he voted for war you will have to say he was lying when he expressed saddness and outrage at Bush's invasion on the eve of the deployment:

"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11."

Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo ...


Or this:

CNN American Morning Transcript
January 27, 2004 Tuesday 7:07 AM Eastern Time
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo...

HEMMER: Senator, the war continues to be a big hot-button issue here in New Hampshire, especially between you and Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. You voted against the first Gulf War. You voted in favor of the past war in Iraq. Howard Dean says your logic is backwards. He told Wolf Blitzer yesterday-and I'll quote him now-“Perhaps my foreign policy experience and judgment might be better in the White House than his”-meaning you-“since he seemed to have voted wrong on both wars.”

Your response to that is what, Senator?

KERRY:

But, look, there is a very direct answer to both of those questions. I said we had to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I said his invasion would not stand. I knew we had to use force ultimately, or might have to use force ultimately. I simply thought, given my experience in Vietnam and given Colin Powell, who was joint chiefs of staffs, reservations and other people, we ought to take another month or two to build the support in our country. And I though it was worth building that support, because when you go to war, you want to make sure the American people are really supportive if things go badly.

Secondly, with respect to this, nobody voted precisely for a war. They voted for a process. They voted to go to the U.N. They voted to build an international coalition that was legitimate, voted to have inspections exhausted, and voted to go to war as a last resort, which is what the president promised us. The president broke every single one of those promises, not to mention misled America with respect to the intelligence, which we now all know.

I stood up for the security and the common sense with respect to the soldiers who fight wars. I've been one of those soldiers. I know what it means when you lose the consent and legitimacy of the American people in a war. And as a president, I think there is a special test as to when you send young American men and women off to fight and die. I know that test, and as president, I will live up to the highest standard with respect to that.

[mikehiggins]

13. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Where does the Constitution say

that the President has the ultimate responsibility for committing forces?

Why didn't anyone stand up and face the fact that Bush was lying and say so? He had been in office since January of 2001. What was there that suggested that he was being honest or that he could be trusted?

How did he get into the White House in the first place?

Did having three thousand or more Americans be killed on his watch make him a world leader?

Congress and most politicians were simply too afraid to challenge Bush while he was riding the crest of his status as a war President. Voting for that resolution was a political decision, pure and simple. It is as simple and as damning as that.

[bigtree]

19. The President has the ultimate responsibility for committing forces

The Power to Declare War — Who Speaks for the Constitution? Part 1
by Doug Bandow, June 1995

It was for this reason that many early Americans opposed the proposed Constitution, fearing that it gave to the president powers too similar to those of Britain's king. Not so, nationalist Alexander Hamilton reassured his countrymen. In fact, the president's authority was:

. . . in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces . . . while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all of which by the Constitution would appertain of the legislature.

Perhaps part of the problem is that modern chief executives, who increasingly style themselves after their monarchical forebears, making war around the globe on their own initiative, do not understand which legislature Hamilton was referring to. Bill Clinton moved up by twenty-four hours his planned invasion of Haiti to forestall an adverse congressional vote, but did press for legislative blessing from the U.N. American diplomats successfully lobbied members of the Security Council: the enlightened nations of Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, for instance, along with China, whose rulers' commitment to democracy is well known; Djibouti, with a total population less than that of a single congressional district; and Rwanda, then still represented by a diplomat from the defeated Hutu regime. Thus, President Clinton was granted permission by a smattering of foreign autocrats to take the United States to war.

But the U.S. Constitution, to which the president swears allegiance, refers not to the U.N. but rather to the American Congress. Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0695e.asp


Thus the resolution is the lever that the Constitution intended for Congress to use to exert this authority. But through loopholes in the War Powers Act presidents have, for decades, committed forces without prior approval for 60 days, after an initial 48 hour notification. Afterwards Congress is tasked with either passing a resolution approving or disapproving the deployment or do nothing and cause the president, by law, to withdraw forces.

In the case of Iraq, I believe Congress would have been loath to retreat and withdraw forces after they were deployed. I further don't believe that a no vote would have restrained him.

That effectively gives the president the power to commit forces and initiate war.

[mikehiggins]

21. In essence, an unconstitutional power surrendered to the President

by a Congress unwilling to deny it to him.

If you are saying that Senator Kerry was not alone in abrogating his responsibility as an elected Representative of the people of the United States, I would have to agree with you.

He was not the only Senator to do so. He is, however, one of two who are currently seeking the office of President. What is there to prevent him from doing exactly what Bush has done if the situation seems to warrant it?

[bigtree]

25. I'm asserting that he attempted to stifle Bush's march to war

through the resolution.

Kerry has no such aims to move on rouge states like Iraq preemptively and unilaterally. He has demonstrated his committment to work with the international community to resolve the conflict there.

Sen. Kerry fulfilled his responsibility under the Constitution by arguing for and obtaining modifications in the resolution of Bush's manufactured mandate for immediate open-ended war.

The true measure of abdication was in voting to further the funding of the conflict through the war supplementals. Sen. Kerry voted against the $87 billion. That's as clear a rejection of Bush's ambitions in the post-war that has been expressed in the Senate.

[stickdog]

28. This is an argument worthy of Kerry himself.

Convolute enough nuance, and you too can make bad seem like good!

[bigtree]

33. Obfuscate and you can make the good seem bad!

[library_max]

20. Bush had that power anyway.

He could have sent troops to invade Iraq without Congress's by-your-leave. Presidents have done that before. It was exactly what Bush was threatening to do - go it alone, invade unilaterally, not even talk to the UN - when the IWR came up. Context is always helpful.

[mikehiggins]

22. The President has been granted that power by the failure of Congress

to honor the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

The last declared war this nation has fought was against Japan following Pearl Harbor. Our declaration of war against Germany, I believe, was the result of that nation's declaration of war against us.

Korea, VietNam, Grenada and Iraq were all unConstitutional wars insofar as the Congress willfully turned a blind eye to what was being done by the Executive Branch. Having opposed the VietNam war as he did, you would have thought Kerry would be even more leery of Bush's construction than the others.

[BootinUp]

23. Of course that is true

I grow weary of the whole thing, lets just kick Kerry's damn butt.

[library_max]

24. I think that explains Kerry's vote against Desert Storm.

And he got a bit of an education when every single assumption he made about Desert Storm (that it was a quagmire, that it would go on and on, that there would be heavy US casualties) turned out to be untrue. That may have given him more motivation to give the president the benefit of the doubt (undeserved, as it turned out) this time.

[BootinUp]

30. The objectives were completely different

as well as the coalition. These were not comparable as military campaigns.

[library_max]

31. Of course they were different.

I didn't intend to say that they weren't, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I supported Desert Storm. I spent a whole day with a microphone hollering at my home campus against the invasion of Iraq. They're NOT the same.

All I meant was that, after being so badly burned on Desert Storm by reflexively opposing the president and the war, it is reasonable that Kerry might have felt motivated to give GWB the benefit of the doubt over the IWR.

[waldenx]

29. it is a long pattern of his behavior

He has never earned the right to be President because he is not a leader.

[BeFree]

32. Have you considered this?

By ignoring Kerry's statements regarding his stance on IWR, you may end up playing into *'s hands?

How so? The case has been made that * lied to the congress about Iraq. It is a fairly simple proposition and one which can be easily proved. However, if we continue to insist that Kerry, et al, tacitly enabled * then the credibility for the '* Lied to Congress' argument may be somewhat undercut.

I empathize with folks who feel Kerry committed a mistake by voting aye on the IWR. I didn't agree with his vote, but I can fathom the political reasons which may have guided his vote.

To make the claim that Kerry's vote was an all or nothing, crossing the Rubicon type of decision, are made in part, imo, from not having made a full examination of the statements Kerry made then, and has made since.

Let us be fully aware of the ramifications of making this one issue weigh so heavily against any support for the man, and become fully cognizant of how it may erode the ultimate goal of replacing *.

[mikehiggins]

34. A vote "nuanced" by political considerations does not make a

leader in my book.

Had the winds of public opinion been blowing in another direction, I believe Kerry would have voted a different way.

That is why I do not accept the proposition that Kerry is a leader for his times. He is a follower of what best suits his political needs and that is not what our times call for.

How effective will he be as President? How effective has he been as a Senator? Does the ability to hold hearings track to an ability to make decisions and policies, and follow them through to an unpopular end? I haven't seen it in the past and I don't see it now.

[bigtree]

36. Which way were the winds blowing?

The comments and criticisms here of John Kerry's IWR vote would lead one to believe that a 'no' vote was the most popular. How do we know for certain that an affirmative vote was the popular one? One poster mentioned that the bulk of phone calls to Democratic Senators was against the resolution. How could anyone tell what the reaction to the vote was to be months from then? How could anyone predict the outcome of the conflict to make such a calculation as to the popularity of anything regarding the IWR?

The political calculation theory doesn't account for the variables that might have occurred as a result of the vote.

So you can have it both ways. Either you can claim that everyone knew Bush was lying and opposed the vote, or you can assert that it was and is a popular vote. Hard to nuance an action that had, and has an unpredictable outcome.