What did Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and Lieberman NOT know about IWR?

[Sean Reynolds]

I hope that this doesn't turn into a flame fest, so I hope you people can be civil in your replies. This isn't an attack on any of the people that voted for the war. Rather a question as to what they didn't know WHEN they voted for it.

Kerry has stated he only voted for the Iraq resolution, NOT the war. Yet I have a problem supporting that belief. Why? Because John Kerry is a VERY bright man that has been in politics for a very long time. How could Kerry actually believe Bush would go to the UN and get support for a multilateral attack on Iraq? What past history has proven Bush works well with others? This is what concerns me about Kerry - he attacks Bush for sending American troops to Iraq but he should have KNOWN Bush would have done this. It's George W Bush we're talking about here, someone that has proven to undermine ANY reason.

I remember talking with my late grandma in late 2002 about the Iraq war. I had asked her if she thought Bush would actually use all needed force before attacking. She looked right at me and said it has a better chance of snowing in hell. If my grandmother could have seen through Bush's lies, why didn't Kerry? I supported Kerry since early 2002 and was just FLOORED by his vote. I don't see the logic behind it. History has proven Bush doesn't care about unification, rather alienation as a foreign policy. Kerry, the wise senator that he is, should have seen this and voted NO on the resolution. But he didn't.

Same with Gephardt and Edwards. They attack Bush because of the way he's handled the war, yet forget the fact that this is George Bush we're talking about. Don't they remember the Afghan war? Don't they remember how the US totally botched that? Why did they put so much stock in the Bush administration?

As for Lieberman, we all know he'd start any war possible if he could. But even he bashes President Bush for doing it wrong. Does Lieberman REALLY believe Bush would have done this war right in the first place?

The senate should have pushed for evidence before they gave George Bush a blank check. They didn't. They may have urged Bush to go through the UN, but in the end many voted for the resolution and they should have known Bush had NO plans to go to the UN.

So my question is this; did Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards believe Bush was going to exchaust every reasonable alternative before war? If so, why? What has Bush done in the three years he's been in office to warrant so much trust? IMO, nothing.

Kucinich had the balls to stand up and oppose the war in the fall of 2002; hell even Dean did. Graham voted no for it, Sharpton, Clark and Braun spoke out against it as well. Why didn't Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt listen to them?

I believe these are reasonable questions and I welcome replies.

[AP]

1. I think the real question is what else were they told which we don't hear

about.

Clinton says that we haven't heard the full story. Edwards says there was plenty of classified info they got which was compelling, although there was some clear BS.

I think we never hear a debate about the good evidence because it is compelling (although, perhaps after serious investigation, false). I think we only hear the easily-debunked false information because the Republicans want the Dems to tear themselves apart over this issue.

I think the Niger documents were probably intentionally poorly-forged for electoral purposes alone.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Well that may very well be the case.

But why did many vote against it? I mean, you'd think Kucinich and the rest heard the same argument that Kerry, Gep, Lieberman and Edwards heard. Maybe they didn't.

But again, they are smart enough that they should have seen past the lies. they didn't and that makes me mad.

[AP]

4. Unanimity only occurs in rare circumstances.

I'm not sure that the vote was a surpise.

Who didn't vote for it? Kucinich is about the biggest pacifist going. He want's to start a Department of Peace. Of course he'll vote against just about any resolution. So no surprise there.

Who else voted against it?

[Sean Reynolds]

6. Well none running for president.

But here's a list of Democratic senators that voted NO on the resolution:

Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore.

[eileen_d]

3. The "he should have known" argument with Kerry -

To me, it just boils down to can you forgive him for making the mistake, or not. I can; others can't; and I've seen firsthand it's pointless to argue that point with facts. It's a trust issue.

Either you give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, taking into account that hindsight is 20/20 and that you can't possibly know what it's like to be in Kerry's shoes -- or you hold it against him, because he shoulda known! he shoulda known!

And over time I've come to accept the validity of both points of view. Because this war is a terrible mistake. However, I hold Bush and his administration primarily responsible for this war.

[oasis]

12. Bush was going to war. He yanked Hans Blix and he withdrew the second

resolution to the UN Security Council, leaving Tony Blair to twist in the wind.

"Show your cards" Chimpy said with such bravado. Then he prevented the vote to proceed.

GWB is a arrogant, lying and despicable human being.

[zulchzulu]

5. I'll defend Kerry's viewpoint

This is Kerry talking about the issue with Paula Zahn on CNN last September. It explains his position pretty concisely:

ZAHN: Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war...

KERRY: No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan.

We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us.

---

The gist is that Bush lied about the intelligence as well as the threat Saddam posed as well flipped the bird at the UN. This was completely opposite to what the IWR was intended.

Additionally, Bush went ahead and attacked unilaterally and as a first option, not as a last resort that Kerry would have done if he was president.

Kerry was against the first Gulf War. Dean has been on record that he supported it. Dean also is on record saying he would support going into Iraq at the time of the IWR vote, but has the convenient opening to not having a position in Congress to have his vote on record. (I only mention Dean because he has portrayed himself as always "the only one against the war " when in fact, it's not true.)

Although I personally protested the impending Bush war in the streets of SF, I do understand Kerry's position. It's not a deal-breaker with me at all in my full support for his candidacy.

Kerry also offers many other traits beyond the IWR vote such as years of experience with the Foreign Relations Committee and working in national security concerns, having the strongest pro-environment platform among all the candidates, an investigative background as a Chief prosecutor and in the Senate with Iran/Contra and BCCI (including helping indict Ollie North and other Reagan cronies) and a strong economic incentive plan that includes alternative fuel resources development, environmental opportunity zones and stronger healthcare platform.

In his twenty years as a US Senator, he has the strongest liberal voting record for a woman's right to choose, for the arts, for civil rights for ethnic minorities, LGBT and economic development for small businesses.

If you look at Kerry's record over the years regarding war, he has always been cautious about going to war as well as was an integral figure in helping stop the Viet Nam war and supporting vets.

I trust what he would do if he was president and had to face down war options in these times, since he is in fact a decorated soldier who actually knows firsthand about war and its madness.

As for Gephardt and Lieberman, they were much more hawkish that Kerry on this and previous attacks in Iraq. I can offer no defense for their actions.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Thanks for the reply

The gist is that Bush lied about the intelligence as well as the threat Saddam posed as well flipped the bird at the UN. This was completely opposite to what the IWR was intended.

Additionally, Bush went ahead and attacked unilaterally and as a first option, not as a last resort that Kerry would have done if he was president.

BUT that is my point. Kerry's a smart man and should have seen past Bush's lies. I mean, what did Kerry hear that made him believe Bush? Why would he not forget Bush's past history and support the resolution? Kerry is too smart to be lied to by Bush. I know he is. It doesn't make sense because even average citizens knew Bush would by-pass the UN and start a unilateral war with Iraq.

Kerry was against the first Gulf War. Dean has been on record that he supported it. Dean also is on record saying he would support going into Iraq at the time of the vote, but has the convenient opening to not having a position in Congress to have his vote on record.

Many Democrats supported the first Gulf War because we were asked for help. I don't support it, but it's not the issue I'm talking about today. We're talking about THIS war, not the first Gulf War.

Although I personally protested the impending Bush war in the streets of SF, I do understand Kerry's position. It's not a deal-breaker with me at all in my full support for his candidacy.

I respect John Kerry for his great liberal record. I will admit that the war played in part of me dropping Kerry as my candidate early in 2003. But in the end I do fault Kerry because he should have been smart enough to realize Bush was playing a con game. Out of ALL the Democrats running for president that supported the war, I believe Kerry was the one that should have seen past Bush's facade.

Kerry also offers many other traits beyond the IWR vote such as years of experience with the Foreign Relations Committee and working in national security concerns, having the strongest pro-environment platform among all the candidates, an investigative background as a Chief prosecutor and in the Senate with Iran/Contra and BCCI (including helping indict Ollie North and other Reagan cronies) and a strong economic incentive plan that includes alternative fuel resources development, environmental opportunity zones and stronger healthcare platform.

Read above, I respect Kerry for his amazing liberal record.

In his twenty years as a US Senator, he has the strongest liberal voting record for a woman's right to choose, for the arts, for civil rights for ethnic minorities, LGBT and economic development for small businesses.

Again read above.

If you look at Kerry's record over the years regarding war, he has always been cautious about going to war as well as was an integral figure in helping stop the Viet Nam war and supporting vets.

I guess what makes me mad is that Kerry, a liberal senator, has ran to the right in this election. He should have run on his record, instead he's running on the base that HE could do better than Dean. That turned me off because I believe Kerry could have made a wonderful president. He sunk his political ship NOT because he voted for the Iraq war, but because he left his liberal record and tried painting himself as a centrist. Like Dean, who many believe was a centrist and moved to the left. It's just too bad that he made the error in support the worst president in the history of America.

I trust what he would do if he was president and had to face down war options in these times, since he is in fact a decorated soldier who actually knows firsthand about war and its madness.

I don't doubt Kerry would have not invaded Iraq, but that doesn't answer WHY he believed Bush. Like I've said many times, Kerry said he didn't want unilateral war. But in the back of his head he should have known Bush was going to go in unilaterally. I did. Most of DU did. Hell, most in the world did. Why not Kerry?

As for Gephardt and Lieberman, they were much more hawkish that Kerry on this and previous attacks in Iraq. I can offer no defense for their actions.

Unlike Kerry, I do believe these two are more hawkish. They'd probably support a unilateral war; thus they have no right attacking it. Remember, Gephardt helped draft Bush's resolution. IMO Gephardt and Lieberman are being hypocrites when they attack Bush on the war because they gave him a blank check to do so. But alas, I sorta think Kerry is being one too. Because we all knew Bush would screw this war up, just like he did in the Afghan attack.

[zulchzulu]

11. Kerry's IWR vote is almost irrelevant to me at this point

We are in Iraq now. Kerry chose to vote for the UN to do its job. Bush lied, etc.

The question that needs to really be asked is what needs to be done NOW.

On that issue, Dean and Kerry's views are nearly identical; get the UN in more and take the target off US troops' backs, end the Halliburton sweetheart deals, etc.

While I like Dean and think his heart is in the right place, I support Kerry because of what I mentioned in the previous thread. I wish his campaign was run better, but I'm looking at him as a potential president at this point.

I firmly believe that once people really looked at Kerry's background and experience that they would favor him, imo.

Thanks for your response.

[CTLawGuy]

19. Kerry's vote symbolizes

to me that Kerry is in 2002-mode. Meaning, don't look too liberal, don't oppose Bush too much. That's just not how we should be.

He was afraid that if he voted against it, they would call him a Massachusetts liberal and Michael-Dukakis clone.

Dean took a stand that was correct and he didn't care that he was called McGovern. In taking that stand, he showed hope for our party to stand for something again, which is what is badly needed to be successful.

[HFishbine]

23. And he seems to have ignored his own advice

And in this great struggle, America doesn't need a Democratic Party that says "yes but less" or "yes but slower" to Republican policies that take us backward.

March 14, 2003

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0314.html

[pasadenaboy]

8. the problem with that is

he trusted Bush to do the right thing without mandating that in the resolution. he basically authorized a war before it was the time to authorize, and trusted Bush to do the right and honorable thing.

Trusting Bush to do the right and honorable thing this late in the game is pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

[wtmusic]

9. exactly

this is a fundamentally issue of the legislature providing a check to the power of the executive branch. With Mr. Kerry's help it failed to provide that check.

All the 'coulda woulda shoulda' in the world can't explain that away.

[HFishbine]

22. That's all well and good

But why then didn't Kerry speak up when he saw Bush was going to war not as a last resort. In the weeks before the war, when millions were in the street, when Howard Dean was saying don't go, when we on DU were debunking Powell's "evidence," where were Kerry's objections?

[sleipnir]

10. Turncoats, all of them.

Their crimes will echo long beyond their failed dreams of the Presidency. We need a Pro-Peace, Pro-Diplomacy President, not one who will rubber stamp a war. Plenty of evidence was available at the time and a NO vote was the only true vote. Why did 26 real patriots vote against the bill and yet the three of these traitors try to argue their criminal vote? At least Lieberman has the guts to stand by his vote...

[Dubyawatchers]

13. Kerry has been consistent

He really has. My wife and I watched him on Hardball
before the IWR vote. He never said how he would vote but
the way that he acted and the way he said things made
my wife and I think that he was going to vote for it
and try to explain his way out of it. We even watched
the rerun of it that night and got that same vibe or
gut feeling, whatever you want to call it.
The bad thing for us was that kerry was our unofficial
first choice at that time. We decided that night that
we had better start looking around elsewhere for a candidate,
just in case.
We were well aware that dubya wasn't either ours or the peoples choice. We knew about pnac and that bushco had its own agenda.
Everyone in DC should have known this too and I bet they did.
When someone comes to you wanting "permission" to do something that they already want to do and it might be the wrong thing to do you MUST hold them to a higher standard. kerry didn't.
I watched his speech and listened for his final IWR vote
that day. All I could say was kerry you're too stupid to
EVER be my choice for president, you just wiped out 25 years of respect.
When and how you go to war is one of the most serious decisions
any politician will ever have to make because it affects so many
and it can be so final for some.
You see my wife and I take going to war just a little personal,
that happens when your youngest son is a Lt. in the Army on active
duty. It does become a deal breaker, the same for the rest of them
that voted for it. If one of them gets the nomination, come
November we'll just stay home. We will not vote the lesser of evils.
We will not reward those that we feel did wrong. Maybe they or the DNC will finally get the message.
As to the crappy argument that it would help elect dubya - f'it.
I survived nixon and lived to talk about it,duh. I survived rayguns, first in CA and the in DC, just didn't gain any weight during that time. I survived bush41 and 3 years of bush43. Maybe by 2008 the Democratic party and this country will finally be so fed up with repugs they'll be begging for a Howard Dean. Someone that is middle of the road enough for all of us to live with. Someone that will try and keep at least my great-great grandchildren out of debt. Someone that has been a Democrat long enough to know what Democratic Party values are and WILL fight for them. Someone that will be President and Commander in Chief so I and a lot of others can sleep easier at night because he won't have to prove he actually was a general and lastly, someone that will make me feel proud of being a Democrat again.

Hallelujah.
Amen.
Pass the friggin whiskey bottle.

[Sean Reynolds]

14. I agree with you!

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

I hope by 2008 we'll be re-electing Howard Dean. :)

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

15. Absolutely fantastic post!

Thanks for saying what many of us are thinking.

[blm]

17. and how would Biden-Lugar have stopped Bush from going to war?

Dean supported Biden-Lugar which only asked for an additional step to have Bush send a letter of determination to the Speaker of the House and the Pres. pro tem of the Senate.

Bush was STILL allowed to make that determination for use of force, even if unilateral in the bill that Dean supported at the time of the IWR vote.

Your support of Dean and nonsupport of others based on a resolution allowing use of force doesn't make sense.

[mazzarro]

18. Hallelujah! my brother - from my personal Amen corner

<eom>

[blm]

16. Dean was NOT against a war resolution, Sean. He was FOR BidenLugar version

which STILL allowed Bush the authority to go to war even if unilateral. The only additional obstacle was that Bush had to send a letter stating his determination to the Speaker of the House and the Pres. pro tem of the Senate. Not an obstacle, at all.

What the others knew was that there was always a good reason to force regime change, especially with the dynamics of the region favoring Islamic fundamentalists who were seeking to overthrow Saddam themselves.

The problem is that so many only see the goals of the Bush administration and never factor in the goals of the Dems like Clinton and Kerry which they have had since 98. Even Kucinich was for regime change in Iraq because so many there were dying because of sanctions.

[CTLawGuy]

20. for the umpteenth time

BL only allowed military action to get rid of WMD, not to overthrow the government and occupy the country. Without WMD evidence it would have been hard for him to go in.

[blm]

24. It required what Bush did do....

with the additional step of requirement to send a note.

Once Bush had invaded, Saddam was going one way or another because regime change was ALREADY policy of the US since 1998.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

25. Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.
Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

The unfortunate thing for all of us is that we naively imagined that Georgie really was a Christian man who would LIE.

Honesty is NOT one of the current Pretender in Chief's attributes...but it took this war debacle to really drive that point home to us.

Now that we have no doubts it's up to us to elect someone with Honor to take his place.

Peace

[Northwind]

21. I don't think that is the question

I do not think the question of why the corrupt Washington insiders voted yes on the Iraq War has anything to do with what they knew about Bush or what intelligence indicated Hussein was up to. You make a fundamental error when you assume any of the corrupt Washington insiders made their decision to enable Bush's war machine based on morals, or legality, or even American security.

Every last one of them did it for one reason: Political expedience.

At the time of the enabling vote, conventional wisdom was saying that anyone that opposed the "popular wartime President" in a war would have no chance against him in '04. So all of the corrupt Washington insiders hedged their bets, voting to enable the war, and if it went badly, they could later claim they'd been misled and minimize the damage. They all felt it was a safe course, because none of them in their most fevered imagination that there would be a viable candidate with a prominent voice giving the opposite message. They assumed that anyone viewed as "anti-war" would never get to be heard, and so they did what corrupt Washington Insiders always do, the tool the safe and expedient course, and voted yes to the slaughter of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. They took the safe course, trying to protect their ambition to be President and bring their corruption to the White House.

For my money, the White House has enough corruption.

Only two men had the courage to stand against the Iraq War when it was "political suicide," and one of them, not one of the corrupt Washington insiders, is now the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and thence to the White House.

[Scott Lee]

26. that the safe vote was the right vote - they blew that one