That does it! Edward's Sadaam=OBL and unwavering IWR support

[absyntheNsugar]

Puts me firmly into the Kerry camp!

Say what you will about Kerry, dirty campaigner, special interest person - AT LEAST HE HAS COME AROUND TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY ON THIS ONE!!!

Kerry regrets his vote, Edwards is proud of it.

IWR is what put me in the Clark and Dean camps, and it's whats putting me in the Kerry camp. All of us should support him on this issue alone.

[anti-NAFTA]

1. Laughable criticism.

Edwards is no more pro-war than Kerry. Edwards is against free trade, which is a more important issue for the general election.

[absyntheNsugar]

3. But his words in the debate last night???

Kerry has had a long history of being anti-war...and I know peaceniks who were duped by Colin Powell's speech.

The fact that he is against it now redeems him (somewhat) in my eyes.

Edwards may want to end NAFTA, but it can't be stopped. All that can be done is to build in the protections that a real trade pact has (EU.) Trust me, if NAFTA had the safety nets like the EU has we would all be cheering it.

[DjTj]

9. His words in the debate last night:

EDWARDS: That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes or no question. The answer to your question is of course.

We all accept responsibility for what we did. I did what I believed was right. I took it very, very seriously.

I also said at the same time that it was critical when we got to this stage that America not be doing this alone. The president is doing it alone. And the result is what we see happening to our young men and women right now. We need to take a dramatic course. We will take a dramatic course.

* * *

And back to your question. What we will do, when I'm president of the United States, is we will change this course. We will bring in the rest of the world we will internationalize this effort. We will bring NATO in to provide security.

For example, we could put NATO today in charge of the Saudi Arabian border, the Iranian border, allow us to concentrate on the Sunni Triangle, where so much of the violence has been occurring.

We do need to change course. And ultimately, we have to get on a real timetable for the Iraqis to govern themselves and provide for their own security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44506-2004Feb15_4.html

What exactly is wrong with that?

[Lex]

12. Kerry gives a really long answer

when a short one would be just fine.

Just step up to the plate, Kerry. Take responsibility for your actions.

[dionysus]

18. Kerry never actually answered tht question in the WI debate

he skirted around it, prompting Edward's dig at him.

[truthspeaker]

37. Good start but not enough

To be credible about Iraq, a Dem candidate has to do more than say it was a mistake to go it alone. He needs to say it was a mistake to go to war at all. The reason Bush went forward alone is because the rest of the world was not willing to start a war because they knew that Saddam was not a serious threat. It turned out they were right and Bush was wrong. Bush lied to Congress and the American people about the threat posed by Saddam. Bush ignored pre-war intelligence and reconstruction plans from the State Department.

Most importantly: the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war against the terrorist movement that attacked the United States on 9/11/2001. It's that simple. Starting a second war against Iraq has made the United States more vulnerable to terrorism than we were before 9/11.

The Dem message should be that the United States should not start wars of colonial aggression. A free society should only use military force to defend itself and its allies or to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. Invading countries so we can put military bases there or take natural resources that do not belong to us isn't just morally wrong, it's bad for national security because it alienates our allies and turns neutrals into hostiles.

[mouse7]

10. Unnecessary deaths of massive numbers of people not funny

Hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis have died for NO REASON.

I don't find that very humorous.

I give credit to Edwards for not running from his vote on IWR, but that's all.

[Tinoire]

13. Ditto for both points. n/t

[jpgpenn]

2. it's good when facts are finally available to everyone...

isn't it? Welcome aboard!

[Lex]

4. So Kerry was fooled by Bush?

Is that Kerry's position?

[absyntheNsugar]

6. He basically says he was

initially against it, but then was invited to a closed door security meeting where he was given information that convinced him otherwise. Now that the real information has come out, he regrets his decision.

I can understand this. True Robert Byrd was at the same session and still voted against it - but Byrd is an elder statesman and has more experience with the neo-cons.

Of course at that closed door session they could have rolled that movie of the Kennedy assasination from an angle no one has ever seen before (just like Bill Hicks said) and then asked: "Any questions?"

[Tinoire]

20. Nobody was fooled! Here is some of Hamza's testimony. Hilarious too.

Anyone now pleading they were "fooled" is not bright enough to be President.

The other thing is that Byrd was solidly defending the constitution- something anyone who voted for IWR failed to do. Are we SURE we want a man in office who doesn't respect the constitution? I pasted part of one of Byrd's articles below....

If we, from our positions knew what the deal was, how could Kerry not know? Kerry knew but he didn't have Kucinich's courage to say BS.

Check this out:

REP. KUCINICH: Dr. Hamza, I have a map of the region here. It's Iraq, and it's up on the screen. Can you tell this committee where Iraq's nuclear sites currently are located?

MR. HAMZA: Actually, that's -- Congressman, that's not the point right now. The point is --

REP. KUCINICH: So you cannot tell where the sites are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody can actually.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay.

MR. HAMZA: Because the sites are now mostly underground, according al-Haideri, who defected recently and built some of those sites. The sites --

REP. KUCINICH: You say they're underground. Do you know where they are underground?

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm

===

Challenging 'Pre-emption'
by Senator Robert C. Byrd

Remarks on the 138th Anniversary Celebration of The Nation Magazine, December 14, 2003, in New York City

<snip>


Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Congress allowed its constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed to the President the constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress--and I mean both houses--Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress.

The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President's doctrine of pre-emption, that cockeyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may--may!--appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional doctrine of self-defense but it is also a destabilizing influence on world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption.

Yet too many Americans are willing--yes, even eager--to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it.

Thank God for courageous institutions--like this one--which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth.

<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031229&s=byrd

[Moderator]

31. Tinoire

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[HFishbine]

33. Thanks Tinoire

You're the best.

Mods, please note that congressional testimony is not copyright protected. Even the reprint on Iraq Watch has no copyright claim.

[dansolo]

30. Then why didn't Kerry listen to Byrd?

Byrd is an elder statesman, like you say, and yet Kerry was arrogant enough to disregard everything that Byrd had to say.

[BeFree]

8. Kerry was lied to

That's the story. The prez lied to Kerry and the American People.

Someone who has his eye on the presidency has to walk a fine line when deciding what, or, what not to take as a bald-face lie form the sitting prez. If JK came right out and said that * is lying, before the IWR vote, he would have limited his opportunities to attack later on. As it was, JK's positioning on IWR has left him with a vey broad playing field, a field that allows him to now say that he trusted the prez not to lie, but lie he did. The truth is JK trusted the POTUS was telling the truth and went along with doing something the majority of American People wanted to see done anyway..

JK's hands are politically clean and he can now say whatever he wants about the liar and folks have to give him the benefit of doubt. Imo, an excellent political move.

[DjTj]

11. He needs to figure out how to say it in a sound bite...

...maybe it's just as simple as "President Bush lied to me and the American people."

...but then Bush would say, "The intelligence was faulty."

...but then Kerry would say, "When I'm President, the buck will stop here."

...but then Bush will say, "When I have to make a difficult decision, I will always put the safety of the America first."

...but Kerry would say, "When I am risking the lives of the American soldiers, I will make sure they are not fighting an unjust war."

...okay, I didn't really know where this was going when I started this, but I personally don't think that many swing voters will make a decision based on this sort of tit-for-tat.

We are going to be putting the idea out there that Bush lied whether or not our candidate says it, and some people will believe it and some won't. I don't see the effect of Kerry or Edwards' position on this belief.

[Lex]

14. The problem with blaming Bush

for his decision is that it looks weak as hell.

[BeFree]

19. What? Don't blame * ?

Well, hell, there goes most of the campaign.....

It is not so much as blame *, as it is to point out that as POTUS, a person has a responsibility to tell the truth to the People. That as POTUS, when an issue like Iraq comes to a vote, and certain promises are made, those promises will be honored and kept. * dishonored America with the way he went off half-cocked into Iraq.

[mountainvue]

17. We already have a president who is reduced to speaking in soundbites.

We're trying to get rid of him.

[DjTj]

23. We're going to have to win an election first.

...and we need to sell our position to the voters to do that.

[Tinoire]

16. Gee I hope not. Anyone fooled by Bush is not bright enough to be President

n/t

[WiseMen]

28. He says bush lied to him regarding willingness to go through U.N. process

[leftchick]

5. I agree Ab.... I am now firmly Kerry because of this...

wtf?....we are now "safer" since the war and saddamm being deposed? He would still have voted for war knowing what we know now?
I liked Edwards until I heard that crap.... :grr:

[Tinoire]

21. Weigh NAFTA too please... It's important and is another form of war n/t

[TacticalPeek]

7. Does he think he is running for the Senate from North frickin Carolina?

Whoops, he already threw that away.

And to be fair, I wish Kerry would stop sounding like he's running for a safe Senate seat from New frickin England. And find a better patch for that damn IWR vote.

Don't get me started.

[genius]

15. Edwards voted against the $87 billion.

I booed him at the Democratic Convention in 2002 but I'm getting to like him - especially now that he's against spending any more money on this phoney war. I like his position on NAFTA better than Kerry's. Kerry also voted against the $87 billion and I know Kerry was against the war so Kerry is okay too. I'm not voting for either.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. We have followed the same path.

Dean...Clark.....Me, maybe Kerry, NEVER Edwards. Edwards just slays me with his position on Iraq now. He NOW KNOWS Bush LIED and STILL says it was the right thing to do and he thinks it's a "good" thing that we are there???? HUH? No way is that man getting my vote. If he thinks it was right to pre-emptively and illegally attack Iraq just because Saddam was a "bad man"....then he must think it'd OK to attack any country whose leader is a "bad person" and it ISN'T!

[MoonRiver]

25. I've gone that route too.

I think I accepted Kerry before you (if indeed you actually have). But Edwards has always seemed phony to me, especially the way he deliberately uses that slang accent, and drags out the pics of his mill worker family. I keep thinking he'll start playing "I was born a Cole Miner's Daughter" to stage himself even better. But, the way he refuses to budge about Iraq is just too much. I sincerely hope I don't have to wear a clothespin on my nose when I march myself to the polls this November.

[Skip Intro]

24. I can force myself to vote Kerry, I can't force myself to vote Edwards

I agree with your post completely.

This issue, TENS OF THOUSANDS DEAD, is the issue for me. The sheer human toll of this LIE of an invasion demands it be the issue for everyone.

Some things outweigh abb.

My conscience will simply not allow me to vote for a ticket of which either half is John Edwards.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. I agree.

He now knows the truth and is STILL supporting the actions of the cabal! OMG.....that is just too much. Too many lives have been lost on a damn LIE.

[WiseMen]

26. Sadly, Edwards showed he doesn't grasp the complex US/Saddam saga

It is bad enough to vote for IWR, it is tragic not to realize
that any progressive must have had a tortured time with that vote.

What Bush ended up doing is the worst of the bad choices and criminal to boot.

Kerry at least argued during his vote that the goal was forced
inspections and war should be the last resort to imminent treat.

That Edwards' attituded is even more disturbing than Lieberman's in
that it he doesn't seem to have any ideological foundation for his
views the way Lieberman did.

[killbotfactory]

29. Kerry is quite proud of his vote

Look at some of his comments after we captured Saddam. At least Edwards isn't two-faced about his vote.

[Guaranteed]

32. Kerry does NOT regret his vote. HE TOUTS IT.

He STILL says it was the right thing to do.

[HFishbine]

34. Perhaps, but unlike Edwards

he doesn't insist that attacking Iraq under the cirumstances which we did was the right thing to do.

[CWebster]

35. "Kerry regrets his vote"

Got a link for that?

[Snivi Yllom]

36. oh come on

No matter how much Kerry or Edwards spin their votes, they voted for IWR, AND supported it. Kerry regrets nothing.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor ." (Fox News Channel's "Special Report," 12/15/03)

September 2003. DOYLE MCMANUS: “Senator, let me--if--if I could go back to Iraq for--for just a moment. You said that when you voted back in October to authorize military action, it ended up being on the basis of information that turned out to be untrue. Let me just put it as plainly as this. If you had known then what you know now, would you have voted the same way?” KERRY: “Well, it wasn’t only on that basis. If you read my speech, I was very clear. Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler, and the United Nations.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/14/03)