Why it's hard for me to defend on the IWR

[TayTay]

Okay, fess up time. I do find it very difficult to charge into DU:G or DU-P and defend on the IWR resolution. It is my humble opinion that that was a bad vote for Sen. Kerry. (At the same time, I don't think he had much of a choice. It was designed to be a bad vote and to put Dem Senators in a box. It worked. Sometimes the Rethugs employ very smart strategies that are bad for Dems.)

I like Sen. Kerry very much and find myself agreeing with him around 85-90% of the time. I find this to be a very, very high percentage and am quite pleased with what he does as a rule. But I had real problems with the IWR vote. Sigh! So did a lot of folks in here. I have read the Congressional Record (here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:5:./temp/~r107SmvES3:e46235: ) of what he said on the floor during the debate on IWR. I think he agonzied over the vote. I truly do. And, in the end, he voted for it. And I have always disagreed with that vote. I know the reasons for it, I know what he meant and I don't hold it against him. (I think it was a shitty position to be in and I sympathize.) But I disagreed with the vote. And I think it's pretty obvious that my heart ain't in it, when it comes time to defend on that one. It just isn't. I have to be true to what I believe as well. And that vote troubles me.

What the Senator has proposed this week is wonderful and I am quite pleased with it. One of the deepest problems I have with the Bushies is their lack of support for our people serving in the military. And I think Sen. Kerry is doing a wonderful service in trying to address the problems individual soliders and their families face. This is fantastic and I could suppport it here, in GD or anywhere else. But I can't backtrace this to the IWR vote. My heart ain't in it. In my humblest and most sympathetic of opinions, that was a bad vote. And an inconsistent one. The Senator has a long history of representing Massachusetts honorably in the Senate and has taken many, many votes that I agree with, but this one does bother me deeply. And so I find it nearly impossible to say anything about it that is positive. I hope you understand.

And so, there it is, my explanation of why I can't defend on this. I wanted to be clear, so people knew why I wasn't in GD backing up. And because at least you know where I stand and why.

[karynnj]

1. I agree

Although I wouldn't say this in the other forums...
Wasn't there a different resolution that required Bush to come back to Congress for a second vote before going to war - was that resolution ever voted on? If it was, then I wish he would have voted yes for that one and not for the IWR and used the logic he used to explain voting for the $87 billion.

I have posted in the other forums mainly because I think the motivations they assign to Kerry are obnoxious and (I certainly hope) unfair. What seems clear is that he was not pushing anyone to go to war, but was trying to delay it probably with the hope to avoid it. I agree with your comment that he and others got boxed in. I've hesitated posting sometimes because people (mainly from here) who are more eloquent or knowledgeable have already responded.

I also wondered how sick Kerry became of having his 1971 questions asked of him concerning Iraq.

[JohnKleeb]

2. Thats ok

I dont see you calling Kerry a traitor or like Bush because of this, its that not the genuine criticism of it that gets me angry.

[JI7]

3. i don't feel a need to defend it

many who supported Kerry did not support the IWR . it's one thing to disagree with it and another to claim he is some horrible person and all the crap they accuse him of. notice they don't do the same with others who voted for the IWR.

but the facts are that Kerry had been talking about the need for inspectors for a while. there were sanctions against the country which were hurting the innocent people(mostly children)of Iraq. something needed to be done to get rid of them. but it certainly wasn't what Bush did.

getting inspectors in there was the right thing to do. we had the world community with us to pressure Saddam to give in to demands. the inspectors should have been allowed to continue doing the job and we should have got rid of the sanctions in exchange for a regular inspection process in there.

Kerry had made statements on these things even before the IWR vote so i'm not sure how much the vote for politically based. i am pretty sure he would have voted for it if Clinton had been President.

and the fact is that it would have passed even if Kerry had voted against it. and this is where i think many people don't really care about what actually happens, but just enjoy ranting. because even when Kerry calls for something positive that could make an actual difference they just come back with some attack for the IWR vote. as if Bush would have done something different if Kerry had voted against it.

[JohnKleeb]

4. Right

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with Kerry on the resolution as many if not all of us do and claiming him to be a terrible person for it. I understand perfectly where TayTay is coming from. You know what is a shame though, that if Kerry had voted against it, his biggest detractors wouldnt hate him so much, I dont know, they look for anything to piss em off, its really a shame. Whats also funny is that many of them like Bob Graham who voted against the resolution because it wasnt hardcore enough and the fact that Graham is anything but a progressive, he was super moderate, but he got the job done for Florida, so I am told.

[sandnsea]

5. I understood then and still do

I understood those who voted no and thought that we shouldn't have a vote on war until that was the actual question. That was Byrd's complaint, that the IWR wasn't clearly a Declaration of War, that Congress was allowing the President to make the decision at his discretion. So I don't see how people use him to claim that this was a vote for war.

I understod at the time that it was a vote for a process. Bush was the one who said it wasn't a vote for war, I don't know how we let HIM get away with saying it was a vote for war during the campaign when at the time of the vote he said it WASN'T a vote for war. When was BUSH lying???

At the time, I thought two things. First, was why we were getting hysterical about Iraq at that particular point in time. That was the big question to me that never really got answered. Second, if it was about diffusing anger in the region because the Iraqi's were starving because of the sanctions, then getting inspectors back in was critical. Everybody, left, right and middle, thought Saddam was dangerous and we had to have inspections. The only way to do that was a threat of force. That's what Bush said it was about, that proved to be true over the course of events in the fall, that's what Kerry thought and voted on.

Bush was the one who twisted support to deal with Saddam honestly into manipulations for war. He never paid for it because any time a Dem said anything, the left responded with "you voted for it". They gave the right the ammunition they needed to win public opinion on that vote and made it next to impossible to hold Bush accountable.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I understand where all you are coming from

TayTay has nothing to be worried about, I'd only be mad and upset if she was spining Kerry's vote on this to say he's a warmongrel, and she's obviously not a believer of that because she is a great supporter and defender and fan obviously of Kerry. Really sucks how people use this to paint Kerry as a warmongrel. I remember in the primaries, when the so called anti Iraq War in all cases candidate got endorsements from a certain Iowa democrat and nearly got one from another that you brought up the hypocrisy, they tried to spin it in their typical fashion.

[TayTay]

7. Phew! There's something about that damn vote

that just gets to me. (And thanks Kleeb for the defense. 'Twas nice of you.) I try to have a very practical approach to politics. There's a phrase that actually comes out of software design, but it fits in politics too; 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.' (Fire might be familiar with this one, LOL!) I think Kerry has an excellent track record at forging alliances (some rather odd ones sometimes, such as the one he had with Jesse Helms) to get things done and move legislation and issues forward. I like that. There is definitely an advantage to being able to put aside partisanship and see what an alliance of common interests can get done and I think Kerry has a gift for it.

That IWR vote just didn't add up. It contradicted what he said in 1991 on the first Iraq War vote and it contradicted what he seems to have stood for through Kosovo and so forth. (Ah, you guys know this. You don't need a history lesson from me.) So there is that. And I think the other reason it rankles so is because the US is now dug into the damn war and all of our options going forward are bad, if not terrible. So, it just gets me. Of course I am miffed at Kerry .02%, the other 99.98% of my anger is directed at * and his band of incompetents who actually prosecuted the war. So, I think my priorities are in order here. And I so have warm and fuzzy feelings for Kerry for the bill he just sponsored. I love it.

[JohnKleeb]

8. Youre fine

Dont feel bad at all, I feel bad at the Dem party somewhat for Kosovo but I am still a staunch democrat. I dont see you in GD calling Kerry a devil or criminal or whatever for it, you don't like the vote, you really expect us to jump on you for that? C'mon, everyone here for the most part has a temper :) but you really think we're gonna jump on you for that. Yes, I read about that bill he just sponsored, I wish it the best of luck. Don't feel bad btw, its hard for me to defend that too, I just defend the man's long history of fighting for us and they can't refute that if it hit em in the ass.

[TayTay]

12. Not for the vote, Kleeb, I know that

My guilt comes from not getting another Kerrycrats back in GD. I feel really bad about that. I think I will go have a good sulk/think and come up with a better defense. I don't want to leave anybody out there to face the wrath of GD without some assistance. (Poor as it may be sometimes,) That's why I feel so bad about it, it is messing up my ability to help other Kerrycrats.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Well then I feel even worse

I dont go to GD at all anymore. Youre a good person, you know that?

[sandnsea]

25. oh pshaw

I think we need to stop arguing that vote anyway. Turn our attention to solutions. It's like alcoholism, the longer you sit in their delusional arena of lies and rationalizations, the longer you avoid the problem and fail to live in the solution.

The only time I even mention it is when I lose my temper. If your heart isn't in defending that vote, you probably shouldn't. I don't agree with his faith-based initiative stuff, although I think he means the little day cares and such that are so important in rural communities. So I just stay out of it, for the most part.

[sandnsea]

9. No was probably his gut reaction

I suspect that's what you are getting at. I would think that would be true.

I kind of had the sense that it was a sort of "What if I were President" kind of thing. As President, I suspect he would have wanted to do exactly what Bush SAID he was going to do. Find a solution on Iraq because that situation riled the ME, from the bases in Saudi Arabia to the suffering of the Iraqi people. The difference is, Kerry would have actually DONE all the hard work of diplomacy and respected the inspections process.

In a way, it wouldn't have mattered whether he voted yes or no because either way, he would have been saying the same things on Iraq and it still would have been spun as warmonger and flip-flopper. Can you imagine trying to explain a no vote AND that you supported holding Saddam accountable to the disarming process? That wouldn't have made any sense either and the Kerry haters would still be Kerry haters every time he recommended supporting the military. No win situation.

[DoBotherMe]

16. That's my conclusion, too, S.

That JK had a rational and empathetic basis for his vote and could not believe that a president in 2003 after horror of 9/11 would use his total powers in a completely political way to further a selfish agenda. Although I thought that 9/11 was probably LIHOP, I suppressed the thought UNTIL we started banging the war drum against Iraq, and that confirmed my suspicion. We all knew Iraq was doomed no matter what we did ... JK and others were going to try to use the resolution to keep the BA from going over the edge to total war. But the BA blood lust won out. I keep thinking about the '71 John who went to congress to beg them to quit funding the war ... and forcing his hero Fulbright into the same dilemma he now faces. It's bitter irony. Dana

[TayTay]

17. AGain, read this page

the decsion was agonizing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/kerry/iraq.html

But I still wish he had voted no. But I understand. Damn the *ies and their damn poltiical boxes. They are the real bad guys here, not Kerry. He has done more for peace and amicable conflict resolution that they can even dream about. I despise them. I don't really hold the Senator's vote on IWR against him. Not so much.

[DoBotherMe]

21. Yes, he was boxed, and if

our congress c/would do it's job, Bush would be impeached for lying and abusing his presidential powers on the IWR resolution. And that was my point in bringing up Fulbright, Nixon's Administration pulled the same kind of political evil and congress had to flex it's muscle and refuse to fund the war while the NA threatened greater deaths of American GIs. Fulbright knew and Kerry knows what kind of animals they are dealing with ... those who will kill innocents just to be proved right. That's why Big John kept saying that this was the most important election of his lifetime ... after he witnessed the BAs actions on the IWR he knew that the BA was the mutated and completely malignant strain of the amoral NA. I despise them (the *ies)too. Dana ; )

[TayTay]

22. Amen to that

That's what so sad about the * Admin. Since these cold-hearted, ruthless bastards control all three branches of government, oppositon is almost impossible. So you have to take it to alternative channels. It is just an order of magnitude harder. (As if Vietnam wasn't hard enough. Gawd, that was a silent civil war.) At lest Kerry could get a hearing in Congress back in '71. Who now would formally authorize such a hearing. They would have to go through Reid's Democratic Committee. (And more Dems need to show up for those hearings, btw. Having just Dorgan and REid there isn't enough.)

[DoBotherMe]

23. Yeah, the democrats in congress must face reality

this is the "give me liberty or give me death" moment -- they must overcome their fear and stand up for the Constitution and restore sovereignty to the people.

[karynnj]

24. Thanks for the link

The views of why he voted for IWR is fascinating in that there seem to be so many reasons to go either way. The various views all show what a no-win vote that was for the Democrats. (The odd thing is that if Bush was legally sane, he would have taken credit for each weapon Saddam destroyed. It was really possible that by continuing to push Saddam he might even have been able to weaken Saddam without going to war. It would have been a huge victory for Bush.)

[karynnj]

18. NO & holding Saddam accountable

Thats a good point which I hadn't thought of. Also what would it say in terms of Bush going to the UN. That really was an obnoxious vote

[sandnsea]

10. I wasn't bashing Tay Tay

Just saying how I saw that vote, at the time and going forward. There's a portion of the Democratic Party that I would expect to vote no to most any Republican idea so it doesn't surprise me when they do. I really don't take it all that seriously either. I really tried to look at the reasoning behind every single Dem vote on IWR, and differentiate between Joementum votes and Kerry votes and even Clark's testimony. Clark suggested the IWR route actually, but not war unless there was an actual threat.

[JohnKleeb]

11. Of course you weren't

I know that. I think we both realize that TayTay's conern on the matter is totally different than that of the far left who will criticize Kerry at every opperunity.

[TayTay]

14. Never thought you were.

Not at all. And besides, it was my choice to drag that particular critter out from under the bed and into the daylight. I brought it up in it's own thread. I would welcome dissent. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite for bringing it up in the first place.

You know, it's funny, I actually am quite pleased with Senator Kerry and his positions on the issues. I must have damn few differences with the guy if the few that I do have stick out so much in my mind. The other big difference I had was on a MA thing about affirmative action and I am way out in center field on that one. Most MA libs were angry he brought the subject up. I was really upset he dropped it, as I would have loved to have heard more of his thoughts on that powerful and dangerous topic. (That goes to our sometimes shameful history on race in Boston and on what liberalism means and on examining programs after a time to make sure they are doing what you intended them to do.) And he brought up the topic, then dropped it and I was slightly miffed.

Thanks to all for the usual assortment of amazing and thoughtful posts. You guys rock!

[JohnKleeb]

15. The only problem I have with people who have a problem with IWR

is people who will call Kerry a warmongrel, bloodthirsty for it, then support someone like Dean or Clark who was just as compromised on the issue. I do understand why you feel bad now though because you feel you cant help out those who have problems in GD, I never go to GD anymore, youre braver than I to go there in the first place.

[JI7]

19. they say it's because

they were electable unlike that congress member who also ran in the Primary and DID vote agains the IWR .

[JohnKleeb]

20. Of course then they whine when their guy lost

to Kerry who was more electable than their guy. You know thats my biggest pet peeve as a former DK supporter, right? Thats why I don't get why some of the DK supporters work with them on shit.

[saracat]

31. The problem I have with these people is the portrait of Dean as the

anti war candidate. Bob Graham was anti war. Kucinich was anti war. Howard Dean didn't even have a vote. When he spoke on IWR, he held the same position as Kerry and then mutated it in his campaign.
It pisses me off because it is hypocritical. Kucinich and Graham put it on the line. And these alleged "anti-war " people could care less about them. You NEVER hear them say that either of those two stood up for what they believed and took a stand.
Howard Dean not only didn't take a stand, he didn't risk anything. He didn't have a vote. He merely stuck his finger in the air and waited to see which way the wind was blowing. He got somewhat lucky.Many of us were against the war. And he tailored his position.
Kerry took a risk and made a decision. I don't agree with it but he had a decision to make. And he hasn't backed away from it even when it wasn't popular. This is something the freepers laud Bush for. Kerry has been much more solid in his decisions than Bush. And he can explain most of them. He certainly is NOT a "flip flopper". That distinction might more properly go to the good doctor in this instance. I might not agree with this particular vote, but he can explain it which is more than Bush can.

[Withywindle]

That's the crux of it for me...

...I wish to hell he'd voted against it, but he DID think it through. He did have a rationale that made sense to him. He IS a bit more hawkish than I'd prefer some of the time, and I think he trusted Bush more than he should have. (And compare that with his stance now, his measured fury at being so thoroughly lied to and what Bush has done to the country and the military, creating a whole new generation of Winter Soldiers.) But it's a consistent position that he had at the time, and even so it clearly was not an easy decision for him to make.

I'm with TayTay. I can't exactly defend it because I think it was wrong. But I don't think it was dishonest, or done just for political gain, or careless. And I've seen people accusing him of doing it for all those reasons and that's what bothers me.

[saracat]

26. I agree 100% Tay, Tay!

I have a little story to tell. A while after the vote was taken and at the very beginning of Kerry's Presedential Campaign, he spoke at a luncheon I attended. I went over and spoke to him and I asked about that vote. I told him that I was leaning towards supporting him, but I just couldn't get around that vote. He said I was the only person, (there were 500 of us in the roon)who had asked about that issue. He asked me if I really thought it would hurt him. I said that I thought it would and, even if I was the only one who asked him, that everyone else was thinking about it. He really looked surprised. He then, told me, that he hadn't come prepared to talk about that issue, but that he would try to answer it in his speech, since I had raised it. He gave the same answer about meaning to go to the UN, and exhausting all options first, that he used in the campaign. He later asked me what I thought, and did he answer the question. I told him he was a heck of a speaker (his speech was excellent) But NO. I told him this was going to cause trouble and he had to do better.

I have NEVER been comfortable with his answer. I just don't understand how others GOT IT, like Bob Graham, and Kerry didn't. Bob Graham was head of the Intelligence Committee. I would have copied his vote ,if nothing else.He knew better than anyone.He saw ALL the evidence and voted NO!

I have never understood why he trusted Bush. I guess I never will. But what is done is done. Kerry was still and still is the best man to be President.

[karynnj]

27. Interesting story

It must be interesting to meet a candidate at that stsge in the campaign. Must have been nice to ask the question and then have it answered in the speech - even with an answer that wasn't what you wanted.

[GRLMGC]

28. I agree

I think Kerry has a lot of awful votes but that doesn't override all of the great things he's done either. That war is a tragedy and I can't defend it.

[ginnyinWI]

29. I love this group of Kerrycrats

We can have a semi-intense discussion on issues, and disagree, and keep it civil. Way to go, everyone!

:grouphug:

[elshiva]

30. On putting the Dems in a box...

The Bushies are masters of this. I don't think Kerry understood how bad Dubya would be. I don't agree with Kerry's vote, but I know it was frikkin' agonizing. If in that situation, what would I do? Dunno.
Don't care so much about that vote now, seriously. Just care about how we get out of Iraq, now, not backtracking.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. AWWWWWW HOW CUTE!

The GROVELBOT came in here!!! We're high class you guys!

[LittleClarkie]

36. I love the grovel bot

It made me laugh the first time I saw it.

But then I think the donkey with the little ears is cute up top there too.

[LittleClarkie]

34. When I storm into GD:P and GD to defend him

it's more to defend him against those who don't recognize, as you do, that he agonized over the vote. Those who think he only ever does anything so that he will benefit politically. Those who charge that there were no underlying principles involved.

I don't have to agree with those principles. But it's important to recognize he has them, and that the IWR vote doesn't make him a bad man or a bad Senator or even Bush-lite.

I get sick of the vote rollercoaster. All the talk of Feingold betraying us after his vote for Condi. That stupid chart the patrickhenrythinktank made up and that certain posters insist show that some of our perfectly good Senators should lose their jobs.

It's the people who live and die by every vote that get on my nerves. I'm arguing that these people are more than their last votes. It's that miopic view that's destructive to the party. I'm trying most of the time when I'm not being flamebaited, to combat the view.

[Laurab]

35. We all have the benefit of hindsight being 20/20

And while I would expect Kerry to be a whole lot smarter than a lot of people, a LOT of people never expected bushit to do what he did. Prior to this regime, it was pretty much unthinkable, IMO. I know some dems DID seem to get what shrubby was going to do, but I can't figure out how. I mean, I know *I* was fooled. I'm not a politician, but I was totally and completely snowed by this administration. Of COURSE we would go through diplomatic channels first, what kind of idiot would rush into a preemptive war? Oops...

Anyway, I'm not defending his vote, nor am I attacking it, because I'm just not in a position to do either of those things. I wish he had voted differently, but I don't know if I would have thought that then, when the actual vote took place.

Really, who would have thought back then, that we would be in the position we are today? Things that we would have never expected, or accepted, are happening daily, and this administration is getting away with murder, literally and figuratively.

It IS nice to see a conversation, rather than a series of attacks - we don't have to agree with everything John Kerry does (or any other dem for that matter). What's more important is what they're doing now. Bottom line is I think JK HAD to think he was doing the right thing at the time. I bet he wishes he had that vote back...

[TayTay]

37. Well, there was this, which mitigated any anger I had

From http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

Love Will Pitt. Just love him. Damn, the man can write. Anyway, this excerpt is from a piece he wrote on Truthout in Dec 2003. Kerry went to face the music at Al Franken's apartment in NYC. He was harshly questioned about his IWR vote. His reply:

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That?s what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You?re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words 'weapons inspectors' were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Plus, I never really harbored any anger or disillusionment with John Kerry. His voting record was too good. I just was confused over it. It didn't jibe with the other votes. I'm over it. I think every so often it comes up and I get a little wistful, a little, I don't know, 'What if'-ish, if you know what I mean. (I'm obviously going soft in my old age.)

[karynnj]

38. This is the best explanation I've ever seen

I wish he would have said this each time he was asked. It's clear and the anger is clearly evident. (He sounds angrier here than in some of his 1970s stuff even.)

This seems the best answer to all the DU threads berating Kerry on the vote - but I don't think those posters are really looking for explanations. Especially those who go on to suggest Kerry is part of the Bush schemes seem willing to ignore his whole known history in favor of very far out scenarios.

Thank you for posting this

[Laurab]

39. Thanks for the article

I'd never seen it, it reinforces what I believed. I love Will Pitt, too, his writing is so good, and I almost always agree with him (which is amazing). You're lucky to have him in MA, too! I have a daughter and a younger brother in the Boston area, but neither one is really familiar with Will Pitt, so I send them articles quite a bit. Neither one is all that political, either, although I think my brother & his wife were "deaniacs" during the primaries.

I'm reading "Tour of Duty" now - it's been on my list for a while, but there were so many shrub books to read first. Seems the more I learn about Kerry, the more I like him. And of course, the more I learn about * the more I DISlike him!