Let's make this very clear- Kerry does NOT regret his IWR vote.

[Guaranteed]

Neither Edwards or Kerry have ANYTHING over the other concerning the Iraq War. They both still "stand behind" voting for the IWR as if it was the right thing to do. Pillars of integrity, they are!

[bryant69]

1. What are you implying?

From what I've heard from Senator Kerry (who it seems has been more grilled over this than Senator Edwards), he's said that he made the right decision with the information he had. He's also criticized the administration repeatedly and loudly for "sexing up" the intelligence, hasn't he?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Guaranteed]

2. I'm just seeing people talk about how they're supporting Kerry

over Edwards, as if Kerry's "come around" somehow, while Edwards hasn't. They're both in the same position.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. At least Sen. Edwards has the integrity to....

openly acknowledge culpability in the deaths that resulted from his vote + Bush's action, something Sen. Kerry has yet to do.

[Guaranteed]

8. I actually hold the IWR vote more against Kerry than Edwards

simply because I expected more of Kerry, as a "war hero" and a supposed leader. He was in a position to truly know what the consequences were of his actions, AND he had the power to do the right thing. He had credibility, and he could have used it.

But, he didn't.

[Meldread]

19. Ditto -nt-

[Anwen]

77. That's exactly how I feel too...

Kerry really should have known better. He says he was lied to by Bush. But all of us here were smart enough to see though the pathetic excuse for war -- and being a hero from another unjust war, Kerry should have know this and he should have spoken out.

Furthermore, Kerry won't even acknowledge his responsibility for IWR vote. At least Edwards took responsibility for his IWR vote.

[GreenArrow]

27. culpabilty?

How, by admiting that he's "responsible" for his vote, yet insisting that he thinks it was still the right thing to do? His responsiblty appears to extend as far as his vote itself, but not to any consequences of it.

The only difference between his and Kerry's positions is that Edwards is more overtly proud of his vote.

[Lex]

6. Kerry admits he was fooled by Bush

or that Bush caused him to vote that way. I think that's weak, imho.

I don't like the way Kerry won't step up to the plate and be responsible for the vote he cast. He hems and haws and sidesteps on the question more often than not.

We just had 4 years of Shrub blaming others for everything he does. I'd rather have more of a "The buck stops here" kind of leader.

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. I wasn't fooled by Bush.

.

[liberalnurse]

12. I don't buy kerry's rationale......

I really did accept Edwards acknowledgment of error in the Wisconsin debates. That took guts!

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Thank you.

Sen. Edwards has a conscience.

[HFishbine]

26. Edwards acknowledged error?

I didn't hear it, and I don't see it in the transcript.

Here's Edwards' answer to the question of whether or not he takes responsibility for his vote. No acknowledgment of error here. The link to the rest of the transcript is below, anybody care to show me Edwards' acknowledgment of error?
---------


GILBERT: You cast the same vote, Senator Edwards, is that the way you see it?

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 by the way, Senator Kerry just said he will beat George Bush; not so fast, John Kerry. We're going to have an election here in Wisconsin this Tuesday. And we've got a whole group of primaries coming up. And I, for one, intend to fight with everything I've got for every one of those votes.

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.wisconsindebate.com/transcript.asp

[GreenArrow]

32. he didn't acknowledge any errors

he said he was responsible, and proceeded to justify his vote.

[flpoljunkie]

3. BGL, please John Kerry's floor speech before the Iraq War Resolution Vote

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Excerpted part of speech:

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

[Guaranteed]

5. Does he REGRET his vote?

No. He did the WRONG thing, and he DOESN'T regret it. NEITHER of them will admit to it.

[flpoljunkie]

14. BGL, direct your anger at Bush who gave the finger to us all,lied thru his

teeth and took us to an unnecessary war, all the while repeating, "War is my last resort." Bush is the one who did wrong; the blood is on his hands.

Do you honestly think Kerry would have taken us to this unnecessary, pre-emptive, war in Iraq.

Bush ought to be impeached, but since the Rethugs control Congress, our only recourse is to throw the bastards out in November!

[Guaranteed]

16. Kerry needs to take responsibility for rubber-stamping

Bush's war.

[liberalnurse]

15. Kerry's self-centered pride reminds me

of President Johnson's regarding to continue the Viet Nam War. Kerry is just incapable of being truthful with the people.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. And there you have it.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.


Was the war unilateral? For all intents and purposes, yes.

Was the threat "imminent?" Obviously not.

Does Kerry currently support the war? Fuck if I know.

[emulatorloo]

9. Let's make this clear -- Bull we have been over and over and over this.

Kerry is against weapons proliferation and has been forever and will be forever

I am going to put it as simply as I can.

1. Kerry thinks bad people should not have bad weapons.

2. Kerry thinks that good people should work with their friends (UN, France Germany etc) to get the bad weapons away from bad people thru sanctions, inspectors, etc.

3. Then if all else fails, then war (with our friends on board) should be used as a ^last resort^ to take away the bad weapons from the bad people

GWB did not do what he an Colin Powell promised. they promised 2, but they did unilateral war instead.

So Kerry is PO'd big time and is going after GWB big time.

[Guaranteed]

11. I'm just saying that Kerry and Edwards are in the same position.

By the way, I don't see how you can argue against what Bush did with what you just said. Bush went to the UN. He pushed Saddam to give up his weapons. Saddam didn't. Bush invaded. What's the problem? He went to war as a "last resort."

[kiahzero]

17. Bush didn't let the inspections run their course

Forced the UN to pull inspectors early, so we could start bombing. Bush didn't fulfill his obligations.

[Guaranteed]

20. Saddam wasn't cooperating.

We KNEW he had weapons (supposedly), remember? That's why Kerry authorized the war, right? Saddam refused to cough them up, so we invaded.

Where's the inconsistency here?

This AIN'T gonna work for Kerry. He castrated himself. He can't use this as an issue. Bush will beat him.

[kiahzero]

28. If I recall correctly, you've got your timeline backwards

IWR was voted on in October 2002... inspections continued until January or February 2003.

We KNEW he had weapons (supposedly), remember? That's why Kerry authorized the war, right? Saddam refused to cough them up, so we invaded.

Hans Blix wanted inspections to continue... Bush essentially said "Fuck that, we've got a timeline to keep" and invaded early.

[Guaranteed]

31. No, my timeline's correct.

We "knew" he had weapons. Kerry and Edwards voted on the IWR. The UN inspectors went in (remember, we still "know" he has weapons), he didn't cough them up, we invaded.

Right?

[kiahzero]

39. Now you've got the timing correct

But you seem to think the process worked the way it was supposed to. Do you not remember inspectors being pulled out early? Do you not remember the conservatives being pissed at Blix because he wasn't saying "Saddam's not cooperating."

Bush jumped the gun... the inspectors could have verified that there were no weapons, and, under my understanding of the IWR and 1441, Bush would not have been able to invade.

So, no... not right.

[Guaranteed]

41. Same timing.

But the inspectors were there for a couple of months. How long were we supposed to wait for Saddam to cough up weapons that we "knew" he had? And we had forty countries with us. Kerry and Edwards, if consistent, and truly concerned for our national security, should have been all for the invasion.

[kiahzero]

44. You've completely lost me

Kerry and Edwards vote for IWR, on the reasonable assumption that Bush can't pressure the UN to pull inspectors out before they're done.

Inspectors go in. Pressure starts from White House, but it's no big deal.

Inspectors aren't finding anything... White House starts chomping at the bit.

Inspectors find a missle or two, continues work... White House says "Fuck it, we're going in"

I've got to go to class, so I can't keep this discussion going. But I have to say, I completely fail to see your point. Kerry and Edwards wanted to limit the proliferation of weapons... Bush cutting off inspections early didn't serve that goal, it got in the way of it. Of course they'd be upset about the invasion.

[wabeewoman]

81. Well the key here is

Saddam didn't have the weapons so it was a bit hard coughing them up. As I remember bush was busy coercing and bribing every country he could to get 'support'. There was NO immenent danger and no need to invade. I think there is a difference in position between Kerry and Edwards. Kerry set up the parameters of when it would be OK -we wouldn't have gone to war if they were followed. Edwards STILL thinks its the right thing to do-he said so in one of the debates. That is no the same position.

[lifelong_Dem]

74. I see

So you rake Kerry over the coals for the Iraq war, but you give Bush a pass.

Good to see where you're coming from on this.

[Guaranteed]

76. I'm arguing Bush's position.

I don't give EITHER of them a pass.

[flpoljunkie]

18. No, he didn't. Bush denied the inspectors the 30 days they begged for to

complete their job. Saddam had given them the access they had previously been died; he was cooperating. Bush lied about this, too.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear capability, no biological or chemical weapons. But hey, Bushco hasn't given up looking. How many more millions of our taxpayer dollars will be spent on this wild goose chase while Iraq seems on the verge of plunging into civil war.

[Guaranteed]

23. Kerry authorized the war because we "knew" Saddam had weapons.

Right?

The UN inspectors were there for a couple of months. Saddam didn't cough them up. Therefore, the war was a last resort.

Of course I don't believe ANY of this garbage. I'm just saying that Kerry is impotent on this issue. So's Edwards.

That's what happens when you sacrifice your integrity.

[emulatorloo]

21. Search today's threads for Edwards on Hardball. . .

which I must honestly tell you that I haven't read throughly. . . he evidently went into his IWR vote a little more. From my surface reading it is diff position than kerry.

At any rate, Bush paid lip service to the UN, then called them irrelevant, he dissed our allies and his war was unilateral. . . .it is hard not to see that.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. If you don't already have this link

.
.
.

I think you would like it

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/index.html

Verbatim text of many of Kerry's speeches, some dating back to '98

I have read over a dozen of them, and although I don't agree with everything, he does appear to be a sincere man

I started studying Kerry's profile/background after it appeared early on that he could be on his way to the Presidency

Time for your present pResident to retire to a pig-farm somewhere . .

I haven't "promoted" or downtrodden any candidate, nor do I intend to,

BUT . .

I AM curious as to who will be running that country south of us that is captive of an insane Administration

my bottom line is

ABB

[gottaB]

24. that's simply untrue

Emphasis Added:

WRP: Do you feel a kinship with the peace movement that exploded around this Iraq invasion, given your background? Or do you feel alienated from them because of that vote?

JK: I felt enormous understanding, empathy, sympathy and respect for the voice they were articulating. I completely understood it. I came from there. I understood the confusion over why someone with my long history, why there was confusion over my position, why people were questioning it.

But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

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

Read the entire interview.

[Guaranteed]

29. Oh, I know Kerry said that before.

I know all about the Franken party, too.

But then Saddam was captured, and the very next morning Kerry was on TV touting his IWR vote. And he's said over and over that he thinks he did the right thing.

But I guess that he can say that AND at the same time say that he shouldn't have trusted Bush. That's typical of Kerry.

But, the bottom line is that we shouldn't have to have this argument. We should have leadership that's willing to stand up for us CLEARLY, particularly when it comes to things like war, and BACK IT UP WITH THEIR VOTES.

[maddezmom]

30. thanks for posting

<and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.>
I'd say he regrets his IWR vote.

[Snivi Yllom]

25. how many of these people

Will end up voting for someone who enabled the war they protested?

[Guaranteed]

33. That is

FUCKING sad.

[Snivi Yllom]

36. more that sad...it's a soulless black hole

A giant vacuum cleaner (the DNC) has sucked out the souls of the party and left them with unacceptable choices.

[emulatorloo]

38. How many of these people will vote for Bush?

You can only say that Kerry was "FOR" unilateral war in Iraq if you deliberately oversimplify his position. I usually don't like hypotheticals, but President Kerry would not have taken us into a unilateral pre-emptive war with Iraq - it just does not compute.

If GBW gets his second term "Mandate," what will he do? I can just hear Dick Cheney -- "It is our due. . . ."

[Atman]

34. I am SO torn now

I have to admit, the excitement is gone for me. I support Kerry because I am still ABB. I like what I see and hear from Edwards more, but stopped paying much attention long ago when it looked as if he had lost all hope. I need to dig back in. Don't get me wrong, the energy to remove Bush is still there. But I'm concerned that Kerry and Bush are both such nasty people that the slash and burn campaign is going really toast a lot of Americans by November. The good side of that is, I think it will be the repubicans who succumb, and stay home in droves, not wishing to show support for the man they know lied 550 Americans to death, but not able to vote dem no matter what. In the meantime, the dems will still be pissed and on fire, probably even moreso. So Edwards will easily win. I mean, Kerry.

Who the fuck knows anymore.

The only humans alive I can think of that would be WORSE for America already work in the Bush admin. So anybody but Bush still works for me.

[emulatorloo]

35. BGL - I just don't see JK renouncing non-proliferation as a principle

However, he has expressed plenty of misgivings about GWB's war.

[Guaranteed]

37. Well, personally, I think he SHOULD renounce non-proliferation!

I think the more WMD, the better!

[Deaner1971]

43. fantastic logic

I can't wait to hear this explanation.

[mmonk]

40. The problem with Edwards

is he still sells the idea and ideology that this was necessary due to 9/11. I see him as having more propensity to be swayed by the PNAC positions in the future.

[KittyWampus]

42. Yeah, But Edwards Ties 9/11 & Iraq Together Just Like The Neo-Cons

so there is a major difference right there.

[The Magistrate]

45. The Problem With This Whole Line, Mr. Loony

Is that it functions as a form of exoneration for the criminals of the '00 Coup, which is a foolish thing to do.

The responsibility for the invasion of Iraq, and for all subsequent developments there, lies solely with the persons who concieved, pressed, and executed that policy, and with no other persons whatever. The executive is responsible. That is how the people view things, and that is the sensible way to view them. You may be sure the jackanapes, who all know is responsible for this thing, will not say, when it blows up during the summer into civil war in Iraq, that it was those Senators who got us into this mess, and if he did, the result would be laughter and contempt among the people. For the people know it was his policy, his desire, and his action.

The vote on that resolution was a meaningless act of theater. The executive has the authority to deploy forces without the slightest oversight by Congress, and has the authority to commit them to combat, with a sixty day period afterwards in which to get Congressional approval of the deed done. The invasion and occupation was accomplished well within that time, and you may be certain that a vote in Congress following that would have near unanimously endorsed maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq. There was at the time, even in this forum, from many radical figures, argument that immediate withdrawl would only make things worse: how much more compelling would an argument along that line been to mainsteam office-holders?

You are also, Sir, seemingly under some mis-apprehension concerning the course and meaning of events prior to the invasion. There is no doubt whatever that the schedule of the invasion was driven not by lack of progress and cooperation with the U.N. inspections, but by strategic considerations, both military and political, of the criminals of the '00 Coup. If the invasion was to be launched, climatic conditions dictated this must be done either in spring or autumn: if it was not done when it was in fact done, it would have had to be put off at least half a year. This would have been difficult for the forces deployed to jump-off positions, and it would have upset political calculation, by leaving insufficient time to be sure of presenting the country with a pretty victory all wrapped up in a bow before the start of the Presidential campaign. Fortunately, that last has proved a mis-calculation, and the political strategists on the other side are probably kicking themselves for not daring to wait, and launching the invasion instead at the start of the campaign season....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

46. The problem with this whole rebuttal, Mr. Magistrate ...

... is that it is a lame rationalization veiled by the florid register.

"The executive is responsible. That is how the people view things, and that is the sensible way to view them."

Majority belief is not sufficient to establish truth. If a majority believed that angels walk among us, it would not suddenly become true on that basis alone. On the other hand there is the Constitution, which allows that only Congress has the power to declare war. While clearly Bush is primarily responsible for waging an illegal war in which we target - but do not count - civilians, those who stood "shoulder to shoulder" with him and those who sought to give him a legislative blank check anticipated accruing political capital for doing so, and likewise they accrue political responsibility.

"The vote on that resolution was a meaningless act of theater."

It should have been. Unfortunately, it was quite meaningful. It was political cover for an illegal, immoral preventive invasion that at a stroke made a mockery of separation of powers and also the UN Charter.

Exoneration may happen in more than one way. Exonerating Bush's enablers is by no means the sole alternative to exonerating Bush. To some of us, they seem distressingly similar, but of course those opinions can be dismissed as mere "fringe" sentiments.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

47. Tradition, decorum, history were all behind the legislators who voted Yes

Bush trashed it all. People generally understand this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. History, ethics, and conscience were behind the legislators who voted No.

Things all too noticably lacking in Kerry and Edwards.

[Guaranteed]

51. That's right.

We stood up against Bush- as a matter of ethics and conscience. I don't know why our representatives shouldn't have.

[The Magistrate]

56. Simple Arithmetic, Sir

People in agreement with you number less than one fifth of the electorate. Therefore these are hardly "your" representatives, but the representatives as well of a great number of people who see things very differently than you.

It really is that simple.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

59. Less than 1/5 of people agree with me on what?

Can you be more specific? You weren't referring to being against the war (which you would have had to have been to be responding to my post in a relevant manner), were you? Certainly more than 1 in 5 people are against the war.

[The Magistrate]

63. At the Time Of The Vote, Sir

The populace was overwhelmingly in favor of the exercise.

At the present time, only a very small proportion of the populace agrees with the political line you are pressing here.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

65. That's not true at all.

BEFORE the war, the in favor/against polling was split.

Only AFTER the war did the favorability rating for the war go up. Again, it was LEADERSHIP, unfortunately, from the Bush administration, and LACK THEREOF from the Democratic Party, that pulled the electorate in the direction that it went.

Haven't we already been over all of this? Remember when everyone on DU agreed with what I'm saying? This USED to be common knowledge.

[The Magistrate]

67. That Is Not the Case, Sir

It may be your version of Party line, but it is not the case.

Nor does what "everyone on DU agreed with" matter too much in comment on the popular mood of the people of the country.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

70. That's exactly what happened. nt

[gottaB]

71. split, but not evenly

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Guaranteed]

72. Thank you for those numbers. nt

[The Magistrate]

49. You Quite Mistake The Point, Mr. Iverson

Truth, as you put it, has very little to do with mass action, while majority perception does. You may well feel, in some moralist's sense, the blame for the action ought to be spread around a little. But that is not how most people view things, and people act on their own perceptions, not yours, and certainly not on some abstract standard of Truth that might be different from their own views. Further, as a question of practical politics (the very endeavor we are engaged in now, Sir), it is a very bad mistake to divide focus. There should be one enemy, responsible for all that is wrong, and any attempt to shift blame from that creature should be denounced as prevarication from the demon itself. That is how these things are won, Sir, and if you are in the slightest interested in victory, that is how you must proceed.

The resolution was not political cover, but a political trap. It was the hope of the enemy that a good many Democrats would vote against it, so that the Party as a whole could be denounced in the up-coming election as soft creatures trying to tie the hands of the man who was trying to defend the country against Satan himself. The criminals of the '00 Coup would certainly have proceeded with their plans regardless of the vote on that resolution. It would have made not one whit of difference to the political consequences of success in the endeavor, and not much to the consequences of failure.

Keep your eyes towards practical matters, Sir. It pays better in the long run. And be very careful of wishing for everyone to get all that they deserve: few of us could stand that strain....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

50. I'm telling you what Bush is going to say.

I'm not exonerating anyone. I'm simply pointing out that Kerry and Edwards can't go up against Bush on the issue.

Personally, I don't believe Bush's, Kerry's, or Edwards' garbage rhetoric about the war. Bush has been lying from the beginning, and Kerry and Edwards are tainted (AND unrepentant).

Here's what REALLY happened:

The Bush administration, filled to the brim with PNACers, wanted to start a war so that their corporate buddies could make a whole lot of money. They also knew that, politically, the war would make an excellent distraction and force wartime loyalty from the Democratic opposition so that they could pass whatever corporate fascist kinds of policies that they wanted to.

Kerry and Edwards knew this, but they didn't have the courage to stand up against it. OUR COUNTRY SUFFERED FOR IT. Whether their IWR votes mattered or not, legally, is of no consequence. What I was looking for was LEADERSHIP- someone that would stand up with me for what is right and call a spade a spade. Their symbolic votes (whether it was that or not) were just as much a stab in the back as a "real" vote, and certainly the public does not perceive that vote as a "meaningless act of theater" anyway. I sure don't. I like to at least THINK of Congress as a legitimate legislative body. In any case, their votes were a rubber stamp.

Kerry and Edwards HAD a chance to stand up for what was right. They missed that chance, and now it's too late, unless they admit their mistakes. Sadly, even in their complacence they weren't able to preserve their Senate majority in the 2002 election. Democrats were rolled, shamed, and practically run out of D.C. on a rail. Maybe they would have done better if they'd showed some leadership skill.

The responsibility for the invasion of Iraq, and for all subsequent developments there, lies with those who didn't stand up against it. And I had THOUGHT that we here at DU were almost entirely against it. How things have changed though, eh? That's the value of "leadership."

[The Magistrate]

52. So In Effect, Mr. Loony, You Acknowledge The Vote Is Meaningless

The responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with the persons who concieved, pressed, and executed the policy, not with people who had not the power to stop it.

Both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards can easily stand against the jackanapes responsible for the invasion. Criticism of the war will center on the lies told to sway the people decisively in favor of it, on the incomptence of the occupation, and on the grotesque profiteering typified by Halliburton that has accompanied it. These, again, are allthings solely the responsibility of the criminals of the '00 Coup, and of no other whatever.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

53. No, I'm telling you it's MEANINGFUL as HELL. nt

[The Magistrate]

54. Hell has No Meaning Whatever, Sir

It is a shabby myth intended to frighten the excessively credulous into fearful obedience to their owners, without a shadow of reality to it....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

55. You're playing with words, now. nt

[The Magistrate]

57. The Point Remains, Sir

The vote was meaningless. The plan would have been executed regardless of the vote. The responsibility for the act lies with the persons who conceived, pressed, and executed it, and with no one else.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Sly Kal]

60. The responsibility lies with those who gave him that power

He would not have been able to do it without the people who gave him the power. No vote is meaningless.

[The Magistrate]

61. Nonsense, Sir

The power to deploy forces and commit them to combat inheres to the office of the President, as our system currently functions.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

64. If it was meaningless, why did Bush even ask for it?

Why did they even vote?

It was most certainly NOT meaningless- not to me, and not to everyone else who was against the war. It had symbolic meaning (if not legal, which is debatable). It showed that Congress was supporting Bush in his push for war.

Kerry's "nuancing" isn't going to go over well with the public. These are transparent, extremely weak excuses, and it will only be perceived as even more of a lack of leadership.

[The Magistrate]

68. In The Hope, Sir

That a large proportion of Democrats would vote against it, so the Party could be portrayed as a gaggle of soft creatures incapable of standing up to the need of protecting the country against murderous demons....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

69. What are Kerry and Edwards now?

A couple of guys who HAD voted correctly, in support of the nation's security, but are having second thoughts about it?

Or, ARE they having second thoughts about it? :shrug:

They'll leave that for US to do decide!

On edit: BTW, since you brought up "exonerating" people, how does it feel to be arguing from the position of an Iraq war supporter?

[The Magistrate]

73. What On Earth Are You Talking About, Sir

Explaining the calculations of professional politicians at the time, and the actual practice of governance, has nothing to do with any position or view of mine.

You, Sir, in some earlier discussions, by my recolection, at least, expressed a good deal of dismay at the ruthlessness of my opposition to the thing, and were even a little inclined to endorse continued occupation of the place....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

75. Well, yeah, I don't advocate our soldiers dying

So, I'm asking you- are Kerry/Edwards for or against the war? You've devolved into arguing for it (only a 1/5 of Americans agreed with me, remember?). So, which is it?

[The Magistrate]

78. Those Deaths, Mr. Loony

Are what it took to turn the people of the country against the enterprise. Now, after the exposure of the lies and profiteering at its root, and the incompetence of it execution, the thing is more unpopular than otherwise, among the people.

My position on the matter remains unchanged. It was a very bad mistake; an exercise in hubristic over-reach. It was done in hope of distracting the people from the economic misery inflicted on them by the criminals of the '00 Coup; in hope of rendering difficult criticism by mainstream politicians of the criminals of the '00 Coup; in hope of binding that portion of the populace who, by their attachment to traditional totems of patriotism and religiousity are moved to vote against their own interests as a matter of right and wrong, more closely to the criminals of the '00 Coup. In the short run, the Congressional election, these goals were largely achieved; in the long run, they have largely failed. That is good.

Both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards will be able to criticize many aspects of the failure to good effect in the up-coming campaign. They will certainly do so. It will help them toward victory. Carping about "enabling" will only help the criminals of the '00 Coup, and that is something everyone here, it would seem safe to assume, does not really want to do.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

79. Those deaths, Mr. Magistrate,

are the main reason that the war was wrong in the first place.

[The Magistrate]

80. No, Sir

Soldiers exist to be expended by the state in the best interest of its people, and when it does so, that is right. When the state expends soldiers against the best interests of the people, that is wrong. The latter is the case here: no good of the state and the people was served by this action, but only various forms of private greed, whether the indulgence of pride, or the desire for political or pecuniary beneft.

Some here might take you to task on other grounds, such as that it is the death of great numbers of Iraqis, some of them civilians, that makes the thing wrong, but that can be safely left to others to do.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Sly Kal]

58. bingo

That is the reason I will not vote for either in the primary. Edwards I might be able to vote for in the GE. He is going to have to make some changes in his positions before I decide.

[tobius]

62. Very true- their answers to questions about it

are completely in character for both of them. Edwards answers questions directly, and Kerry positions himself depending on the needs of the day,

Both support the removal of Saddam and would have invaded-(imagine inspectors still in to this day with no WMDs found and saddam still playing games, our troops left out in the desert to force inspections)

The hostility and hand wringing on this forum are a result of that recognition.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

[nomaco-10]

66. Kerry will reget it when it is politically expedient....

and that is why I have very little regard for him as a person or a politician.