IWR and Sen. John Kerry

[bigtree]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, as the resolution states:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?

These are the foremost provisions of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.

1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

They had a chance to modify the war in separate funding bills. Voting against them is as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate can manage without total obstinance. This is in the wake of evidence of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.

2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or on the facts at hand, to claim that John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. I believe that Congress would be loath to remove forces after they were committed.

The only input that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which I don't believe would have restrained the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution.

Principled opposition to Bush's war is to be respected and encouraged. But I reject the argument that those same principles were betrayed in just voting for the IWR.

Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.

Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.

If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.

That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It stinks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.

It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval.

Sen. Kerry and other Democrats didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.


I defended John Kerry in this because he gave an informed (misinformed) rational for his vote. Maybe I wouldn't have made that vote. I don't know what lies the administration put before the U.N. and Congress. I do know that John Kerry opposed what the president ultimately did, before and after the vote. He didn't hide behind clipped rhetoric. He was effusive in his complaints. He was clear in his opposition to unilateral invasion and occupation.

I was also opposed to the president's actions; before the vote and at the U.N with Powell's phony presentation (I couldn't believe they bought that load.) I anguished over the vote which threatened to wipe out the Senate Democrats because Bush had taken them to the edge of the mid-term elections.

I listened to the debate. I thought Biden-Lugar and Byrd's outright rejection of Bush's open-ended first draft was superior to the final vote. But I listened to John Kerry's admonitions in his floor speech. He said that he would personally hold the president accountable if he exceeded the restraint implied in the bill.


From John Kerry's Floor Speech Before The Vote:

"I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out."
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html


His presidential bid was a natural extension of his promise. He has was consistent in his aim to remove Saddam with international support. He had deeper knowledge than I as to the true nature of the threat posed. Sen. Kerry is no stranger to the debate over our country's support of Saddam's regime and the corrupting violence proliferated by Hussein. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act supported by Clinton which called for non-military regime change. He has been consistent in his concern for the security of the region and for the potential transfer of bio or chem weapons by an unchecked Iraq. His IWR vote was an extension of that concern.

Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconceived invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check.

Congress doesn't have the will to collectively stop this war, even in the face of the evidence that Bush inflated the threat. Massive funding bills have ratified our mostly unilateral occupation there. John Kerry voted against the first $87 billion.

I think this fish rots at the head. Bush must go. John Kerry was consistent in seeking the presidency to ensure that the will of Congress, the American people, and the concerns of the international community are not disregarded in the future. I hope he continues to fight for us.

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. He sold out for political gain. No matter how you or he spins it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. And had he not, the outcome would have differed how?

[The Magistrate]

6. Like Many Other Things, Sir

True but utterly unimportant.

The responsibility lies with the persons who conceived and pressed for and executed the business. Turning the focus from them is counter-productive, and at best simply conduses people.

The united message should be criticism of the current Republican regime: they must be proclaimed, and held, wholly responsible for the thing. This has the advantage of being both true, and very important.

"It is essential to success in propaganda to select a single enemy, and focus all ire upon him."

[saltpoint]

8. I object to the "sell out" fragment because the quotation of John

Kerry plainly states its purpose against the backdrop of Bush's manipulations but I wholly agree with you on the urgency of a united front.

I believe more energy should be summoned in favor of any and all Democrats and far less given over to bashing one soul from Massachusetts, which is all too prevalent on these boards.

[jpgray]

17. Kerry bashing doesn't accomplish much I agree

But manipulations aside, the IWR placed authority nominally belonging to Congress in the hands of one man--Bush. That, whether via IWR or Biden-Lugar was not a smart move. Politically necessary according to some at the time? Yeah. Necessary to convince Saddam we were "serious?" If that was the only way we could do it (which is by no means clear), we shouldn't have done it and certainly it's hard to make a case that it should be voted for. As for the niceties of "last resort" and "exhaust all diplomatic measures," as soon as the resolution passed those terms were Bush's to define--Congress (as we saw) had essentially zero further role in deciding whether or not the Iraq war would go forward. That was the mistake--it wasn't a benign attempt to coerce Saddam, it was simply placing dangerous authority in the wrong hands. Kerry should have known better, however politically necessary and well-intentioned his vote was.

[saltpoint]

21. I believe Senator Kerry's remarks, plainly quoted above, are clear.

[jpgray]

25. "I give the authority, and if he dangerously misuses it I will complain"

That's not a great basis of accountability on which to give power that belongs to Congress over to a president, and -this- president in particular had given no indication that he was responsible enough to handle this authority with the patience and reason Kerry seemed to hope for.

[saltpoint]

29. Given the misinformation, that is, the lies, the perpetuated this war,

blame should be squarely placed on the cabal inside the White House which in effect lied through its teeth so that the nation was committed to a disastrous engagement in Iraq.

Let's put it where it goes.

[jpgray]

30. Now I definitely agree that Kerry can't be "blamed" for the war

But I also can't see the argument that this vote was in any way a good one. To my mind, it was unquestionably a big mistake. Only Bush could cause the war, but giving him basically unfettered authority to do so was just not a good idea.

[saltpoint]

35. jpgray, Kerry has said the vote was a mistake, but again, a U.S. Senator

does not have the authority to launch military assaults on sovereign governments. The war was decided on months and months in advance of the first Congressional debate, a sad fact we are slowly learning more about as the weeks go on and Bush's poll numbers continue to fall.

Bush is or he is not in charge. I have no idea if he is smarter than he sounds, but I doubt it, and I expect that Rumsfeld and Cheney are running this government. And that can't be good.

I repeat: we need to put it where it goes, and the blame goes at the doorstep of the Republican Party and its current administration.

I think that is a pretty good frame of reference for an attempt at a blue House in 06.

[jpgray]

41. Even if IWR was a formality, it was still a bad formality to vote for

And I agree that if we're going to put someone's head on a stake for this war, Kerry's is an odd choice. I think people here treat him badly because as a target they can do him immediate damage--progressive support is vital to a Democrat, whereas it's never there in the first place to take away for a Republican.

[Raksha]

84. NOT a good idea...once the authority is given

it can't easily be taken back again. It's a much wiser course of action not to give it in the first place if there are ANY doubts or reservations whatsoever. I'm sure John Kerry doesn't need to hear that from me. The IWR was a MISTAKE with tragic consequences. While I don't hold it against Kerry and the other Democrats who voted for the IWR, I'll always have more respect for those who had the good sense and political courage to vote NO.

[Yollam]

69. I wish I could agree with you...

"It is essential to success in propaganda to select a single enemy, and focus all ire upon him."


For me, the enemy is pro-war, military-industrial-complex whores, not members of a given party.

[jpgray]

83. But if you are to put someone's head on a stake for the Iraq War

Is John Kerry even in the top twenty of those who deserve it? It's important to examine the vote, but I would be a little more specific in who I oppose--if you simply divide people into whores and non-whores, you have to entirely supplant our current system with a completely new one. If you acknowledge some difference between whores (say, a difference between Bush and Kerry, or Bush and Gore) then you can actually make tangible progress. If you oust all the nastiest whores, the whorehouse will be marginally better for it, no? Abolishing whores entirely would be nice, but I think that's less within the capabilities of the electorate, don't you?

(and yes that metaphor has been beat to death now I hope :P)

[Yollam]

85. You hit one nail on the head...

"you have to entirely supplant our current system with a completely new one."

I pray for that every day. The current system is broken beyond repair, IMO. It certainly wouldn't be worthy of defending.

[bigtree]

27. he saw the 'politics' as a way to achieve what he believed in

I don't know of any other way to achieve that other than to participate in or try to affect the political system in some way.

He just doesn't strike me as a man who is overly concerned with his personal self outside of his public ambitions, which are evident in the causes he fights for.

I'm for political gain, Democratic gain, progressive gain . . .

[Hippo_Tron]

34. He did and it's unfortunate

I still like Kerry and believe that he has done some wonderful things in his senate career. But his ambitions for the presidency clouded his judgement and he listened to the people who told him that he would not be a viable candidate if he voted against the IWR. Not only were those people morally wrong, they were politically wrong and if Senator Kerry hadn't listened to them, he just might be President Kerry today.

[ginnyinWI]

73. history will blame Bush, not the Congress

He didn't need their votes, he only wanted them for political cover. But history will know better.

Anyway, look who is saying the war was a mistake and mishandled at every turn, and look who is stubbornly hanging on to the notion that to admit to a mistake makes you weak? * thinks he'll be judged well by history--which just shows us how far into Lala Land he really is by now.

[LittleClarkie]

97. If he were that sort of man, he would have taken Clinton's advice

and supported DOMA.

He is not.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I'm just getting ready to kick off for the night

but will bookmark this and read in the AM...I agree with everything I've read thus far but then we always known we fundamentally agree on this point

[tatertop]

9. Hot stock tip if Kerry runs: GERITOL

Not only does Kerry need it,
WE need it to stay awake as he concedes.
I cannot believe =CANNOT BELIEVE=
anyone would support Kerry into a second loss.
How does President Newt sound to you?

[saltpoint]

11. Time has a funny way of catching up to everybody, tatertop.

You'll get yours one of these days.

The life of the mind is what must be nimble and capable. I set Kerry's up against that standard.

Your remark was snide and ageist.

[tatertop]

16. I am his age. bush had oil; we will have GERITOL

Kerry laid down. And slept.
I will vote for him if he is the candidate.
How soon we forget the man who slept because he didn't
have his vitamin..... thing.

[saltpoint]

19. I might have thought, then, that you would acknowledge more

generously genuine accomplishment in another citizen.

Especially a public servant with long-held and principled stands for civil liberties, the environment, and women's rights.

I would have imagined you'd hold those high and see their destinies in some part apparent in those who champion them in legislation and on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

[Blaukraut]

13. funny, I have no problem staying awake while listening

to John Kerry speak. neither do most of my friends and family, or anybody else I know who has heard him. I wonder if the problem here isn't that a lot of listeners have the attention spans of gnats, or suffer from ADD. There IS help for that, you know.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. I'll gladly vote for him again

Even amongst the Democrats running against him, he was more qualified

[tatertop]

18. stock tip: GERITOL

He is better than Hillary but not by much.
Kerry cannot win.

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. As a young woman,

I can guarantee I'd choose Kerry over you.

Zero contest.

[LittleClarkie]

109. Not only that. I will support him even if he never runs again

I like him. He'd make an awesome president. But even if he never runs again, he will remain a good man, and I will support whatever endeavor he would pick up next.

[tatertop]

3. this is just so sad

[jpgray]

5. I made this argument many times in the primaries. The problem is:

The theory that giving the president authority to engage Saddam might encourage him to cooperate is sound, until you realize that the vote effectively put all of Congress's war-declaring power squarely in the hands of George W Bush, which was not smart by any measure. Biden-Lugar, incidentally, had basically the same problems as IWR but allowed for more documented accountability and was the better bill. Trusting Bush with that authority was a mistake, and there is no reason Congress couldn't use the threat of war as a diplomatic lever without ceding all the authorty to a president, let alone this president.

[bigtree]

15. Bush disregarded the resolution in his rush to invade

Hard to argue that Congress could have stopped his push to war with an opposite vote. Bush initially didn't intend to go to Congress. All of the occupation funds came from the subsequent funding authorizations. Stop those and you stop his war. Nothing in that resolution could change that. If they cut funding, nothing in the IWR could prevent the drawdown of forces as the money ran out.

Nothing in the resolution gives Bush the authority to do what he did. Nothing in the IWR could restrain Congress from withholding funds now and drying the occupation up.

[jpgray]

22. Actually, as you point out the IWR was perfectly vague enough for Bush

Iraq was a continuing threat that could not be contained by UN resolutions alone, according to him. And according to the resolution, that's good enough. That's a dangerous degree of authority to give to someone that couldn't be trusted, and there is still no evidence that only by ceding authority to the executive branch could Saddam be threatened.

[bigtree]

43. they ceded authority when they were presented with the first funding bill

Kerry voted against it.

[jpgray]

46. That was a good vote. His IWR vote was a bad one

It's good that he learned from his mistake, but I can't see the IWR vote as anything but a mistake. A well-intentioned mistake? Maybe. A mistake that seemed politically necessary at the time? I'll give him that. But it remains a mistake.

[ginnyinWI]

78. It was a rubber stamp congress then, as it is today.

When the Dems gain majority, I think we'll see some action on this front.

[bigtree]

79. no question

I still remember a time . . .

[saltpoint]

7. No one can spin direct quotes when they're as obvious as this.

Tremendous, focused summary worthy of a graduate history seminar.

Thank you.

[tatertop]

10. How does Newt roll off your tongue?

Kerry, like Hillary, will lose.

[saltpoint]

12. You know little about the future except that you'll have to cool your

brow a bit in order to participate as a volunteer to a good cause.

You no more know who will be nominated than anyone else.

Nor who will win and lose.

You know nothing about it at all.

[tatertop]

20. Whatever.

Let us hope Kerry stands down.

[saltpoint]

23. You will find many who will hope that very thing but I would welcome

any Democrat, whether Kerry or another, who will advance the tenets of a more humane government.

I believe that will not be manifest in the GOP ticket, at least among the potential names so far offered.

I believe our platform is the more humane and it gets my vote, no matter who comprises the ticket.

[tatertop]

26. This is why we need Gore

[saltpoint]

28. If others can find inarguable virtue in Gore, why are you unable to

offer the same consideration for Kerry?

Gore's great. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, no questions asked.

But we need a humane government, tatertop. We most certainly do not have one now.

Are you for the party's ticket next time, even if your favorite candidate is not on it?

[tatertop]

32. I shall vote Kerry if need be

And that is all.
I WORKED for Kerri in '04.
I SPENT money on Kerry in '04.
Never again. If Kerry is our candidate, I am leaving the country.

[ProSense]

36. Let me know, and I'll help with packing! Take Bush with you! n/t

[tatertop]

40. How soon you forget:Kerry fell asleep while your vote went to zero

GERITOL!
Get the gallon jug!!!

[ProSense]

45. Are you sure it wasn't you that fell asleep?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

[rockymountaindem]

68. How many times are you going to say the same thing?

It's not as if your vacuous statements gain meaning and gravitas the more you repeat them.

If Kerry being the nominee is enough to make you want to leave the country, I don't know what to say.

[saltpoint]

37. You're allowed to live in other places. But please consider a strong

blue vote for the House in 06. It's a crucial launchpoint for any subpoena'd documents for articles of impeachment.

[tatertop]

47. I hope we can bring this country back to the state of reason

I am not hopeful.
Who would have ever guessed
this country could become so fucked up in five years.
Not I.
The time has come to
lay out a plan B.

[saltpoint]

49. I am eager for November 7th but happy right now just volunteering.

You meet the coolest people in those kinds of campaigns. I'm not saying 08 is unimportant -- I understand that it's all the same election, so to speak. But the simplest tasks in service of the greater goal is energizing, and as I say, it's very good to swap tales with other like-minded Democrats.

Don't give up on us just yet. I think the Republicans are the ones who will be crushed to death in the midterms. The House is certainly within our reach, and there's an outside chance we get the Senate, too.

[_dynamicdems]

103. And yet another reason to vote for Kerry! Promise? n/t

[tritsofme]

24. You missed one very important sentence:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

They didn't make him accountable, and gave him carte blanche to be the "determiner" on when and where the armed forces were used.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with his reasoning that Iraq had not met these conditions:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


This resolution made him the determiner and only he could determine, and everyone who gave him that power should be ashamed.

[bigtree]

38. there's nothing in there that would prevent Congress from withholding

funding then and now. That puts the IWR and those provisions in perspective. Bush has as much power to use our forces as he has funding.

You notice he doesn't use the resolution to justify his invasion. He references 1441 because he skirted the subsequent promise to come back before the security council. Ironically, that didn't give him the authority either. Annan said the war was illegal.

The crime, in my view, is Congress' refusal to pull the plug on his deadly mis-adventure now. Nothing in the resolution would prevent them from doing that.

[sandnsea]

55. A CiC is always the final authority

There's no other way around it. Even with a Declaration of War, the CiC makes the final decision to send troops. That is just the way it is.

[fedupinBushcountry]

31. Thank You

my sentiments exactly. I was against the war, and I know Senator Kerry was for a process. Even I thought the inspections were the best way to stop Bush and his war. People forget he was ready to go to war as early as Nov. '02. I was even fooled by his arrogance and downright bully mentality.

I have never hated a president in all my 55 years, I didn't like Nixon , but I hated the way he treated that office.

I really and truly hate George Bush, he has destroyed so much, not just by the war, but everything from religion, to medicare to stealing the access out of Social Security, to non-funding No Child Left behind, and the blatant incompetence that he showed before, during and after Katrina. My list could go on and on and on.

There is one person, but I will also include that neo-con group lead by Cheney who brought us to war and slowly are destroying this once great country.

Thank you again Bigtree, I so appreciate this post, :patriot:

[jpgray]

33. Any process that put all authority in Bush's hands was not a good idea

However well-intentioned. I don't blame Kerry for the war, certainly not on the scale of Bush or say his pals Lieberman and Gephardt in the Rose Garden, but this vote just doesn't make good sense no matter how you look at it, in my view. Ceding power to the wrong individual at the wrong time with no basis for accountability beyond vague niceties that were easily pushed aside at the time--it's hard to see that as the only way to put pressure on Saddam. And if it was, it still shouldn't have been voted for.

[fedupinBushcountry]

39. You don't get it

Bush would have gone to war without this resolution, this was a way to get the inspectors in , the inspecters were doing there job, then Bush had to think up another way to lie his way into this war.

I'm sorry vote or no vote, we would of still had this war.

[jpgray]

44. In that case it was still a lousy vote

Formality or no, it is not at all clear that IWR was the only way to get inspectors in the country. Formality or no, it is not at all clear that Congress had to cede all authorty to Bush to threaten Saddam. Even if it -was- the only way to threaten Saddam, clearly it should not have been voted for because it lacked any basis for accountability. After all of that, it would be lousy even if we had a decent president--with Bush in charge, making the case for IWR support as a good thing seems completely impossible to me.

[ProSense]

42. The 2001 resolution gave Bush authority

and he abused it to spy on Americans. Only two republicans, one being Jessie Helms, voted against it.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.


http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

[Yollam]

48. No. No. No.

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

NO. The CONGRESS has the ultimate responsibility under the Constitution for declaring war. It is a responsibility the have abdicated in the postwar years by never issuing formal declarations of war, and through the War Powers Act and its filthy bastard child, the Iraq War Resolution. Both are completely irresponsible pieces of legislation, and the fact that the former is over 30 years old does not make it any less reprehensible.

It could be argued that military action absent a declaration of war might be permissible in the case of a sudden sneak attack or other dire emergency, but no such events have taken place since WW2, with the exception of the criminal acts of September 11, 2001, which were NOT an act of war, but a criminal act committed by a bunch of thugs, not a nation.

Please do not perpetuate the endless war state that the War Powers Act by rationalizing Kerry's and other "democrats'" votes to relinquish their authority to the lunatic Bush.

Kerry was a fool to sign the IWR, and has as much admitted that. He was also a coward who tested the political winds and bet on a losing horse, but he will never admit to that cowardice.

People may come around to vote for him because of his other merits, in spite of this one foolish and craven decision, but don't think that any of this rationalization will EVER excuse his vote, or the slaughter it resulted in.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yollam]

56. My problem is with a yes vote for mass-murder.

It's not just Kerry. It's any other repub or dem who voted for it. My problem is with people trying to retroactively characterize a vote that was in effect a green light for war as some sort of restraint against Bush. Even if you buy into that rationale, the IWR was wholly unnecessary, since inspectors were already on the ground and being given access. Every single dem should have been calling the administration on their blatant lies, rather than lending them validity by not challenging the ridiculous assertions about balsa wood gliders with anthrax. Every single dem should have voted NO. The only reason I've been going after Kerry is that people continue to try to spin this vote into some kind of heroic act when it was a massive copout. I guess the reason the spin is so convincing to Kerry's followers is that Kerry himself seems to believe it. But no matter how I look at this, I think that the Kerry of 2002 betrayed the Kerry of 1971.

[ProSense]

64. Voted for mass-murder? Spin doesn't begin to describe this comment! n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

80. Yollam, no attorney, much less an elected official, is going to

equate provisional legislatiive language with a manifestation of mass murder.

Call every lawyer in the country if you want and I doubt you'll find enough for a poker game.

That claim you made is for the realm of philosophy. And it has a place there, as philosophers would attest, but you are calling it down from those realms onto legislation, and that just isn't a reasonable summons.

[Yollam]

87. I'm not a lawyer and it's not supposed to be a legal argument.

It's a moral argument. The Iraq war WAS, however, a clear violation of international law, and since it was an illegal war of aggression based on completely false premises, every "collateral" death was a mass murder victim (IMHO). When the Congressional warmongers voted to give the raving lunatic Bush a blank check for war, they were aiding and abetting in a war crime (IMHO).

I wouldn't waste my time trying to promote war crimes charges against the cowards who voted for IWR, because as you have said it would be a futile waste of time. But Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld REALLY should be behind the dock at the Hague. But even that seems to be a pretty remote possibility.

[saltpoint]

89. I don't think many of us are too crazy about the war in any aspect.

Even thick-headed Republicans would have to admit that management here is a huge issue, and that's one reason -- not the only reason, though -- that Rumsfeld's under such fire. I hope before the end of the week we will be speaking of Don Rumsfeld's tenure as Sec. of Defense in the past tense.

I also believe most of us understand your moral claim about the war in Iraq. You'll likely get little or no argument about the moral transgression.

Bush has a lot to answer for.

A united blue front can flip the House and maybe the Senate in November. I think that is an achievable goal and one worth fighting for.

[Yollam]

90. You're right about that.

I fully intend to tone down my criticism as election season comes into swing. I feel that now is the time to get it out of my system.

However, even if we won back both houses, and even if a miracle occurred and the democrats had the backbone to impeach that POS, I doubt that anyone in that filthy administration will ever serve any time for their heinous crimes against humanity.

And that really fucking chaps my hide.

A lot more than anything John Kerry has ever said or done. Make no mistake about that. Kerry pissed me off, but I despise Bush and his ilk with every fiber of my being.

[saltpoint]

91. We disagree sharply on Kerry; we agree completely on Bush.

[bigtree]

51. you know well that wasn't going to happen in that Congress

we couldn't even get a Democratic one to draw that line which is so clearly mandated in the Constitution as Byrd and others argue.

The situation at that time was that that Congress wasn't going to assert that constitutional authority. They opted instead for this mostly unenforceable resolution. Everything that Kerry advocated, before and after his vote for the IWR (in which he had lobbied for, and received, language to restrain Bush) was a responsible exercise of his minority vote in the republican dominated process. You speak of rationalizations, but ignore the political reality of Bush's intent to push foward regardless of what they did, and disregard Kerry's own words (volumes) before and after the vote.

He did not vote for war. He did not have the power to stop Bush's push to war, but he tried to mitigate it. He does regret his vote, but he doesn't have to apologize for Bush's crimes. Bush disregarded the resolution, so it's a strained argument that it some how bolstered his push to war. It contains the only recorded opposition in approved legislative form to Bush's rush to invade Iraq. That opposition is found in the language that Sen. Kerry and others fought to have included regarding a return to the security council, and an exhaustion of all peaceful means before resorting to force. I wonder where, in the republican majority in both houses of Congress, would you expect to find stronger approved legislative opposition to Bush's rush to invade?

[Yollam]

52. Falderal.

"I wonder where, in the republican majority in both houses of Congress, would you expect to find stronger approved legislative opposition to Bush's rush to invade?"

It's called a NO VOTE. If every democrat had voted NO with a unified voice, the war would have still gone on, but they would have been on record as having opposed a crime against humanity. And as I have asked on so many occasions before, if the Iraq War Resolution was such a wonderful way to "restrain Bush's ability to go to war", then why did even most of Kerry's defenders on this point NOT support the resolution at the time?

[ProSense]

54. So a unified voice, not saving lives is the most important to you? n/t

[Yollam]

57. Are you saying with a straight face that the IWR saved lives?

:eyes:

[ProSense]

60. It's a one line post, you didn't understand it? n/t

[Yollam]

63. 2000 US and 35000 Iraqi dead.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that that death toll would be any different had democrats shown some goddamn backbone in 2002.

If I remember right, quite a few of pro-war dems, like Daschle and Cleland, lost their seats after that vote. A lot of good it did.

[ProSense]

65. Because Bush would have gone to war. So what's your point? n/t

[Yollam]

67. My point is that IWR saved ZERO lives.

and it put several key DEMOCRATS' stamp of approval on a criminal war.

[ProSense]

70. Except the Democrats didn't approve Bush's actions. Didn't happen n/t

[bigtree]

58. approved

approved legislative opposition

The language in the IWR that was ignored by Bush in his rush to invade represents the point at which Bush disregarded Congress, the law, and the American people.

No one says it was a 'wonderful' vehicle, but, it was the only one after the Democratic alternative was rejected. What was clear to everyone, was that Bush was just going to do what he wanted with our forces, regardless of what Congress did. He said so before the vote.

[Laurab]

101. Indeed, back then many would not have expected

a pResident to do what this one had done. There was no precedent for it, at least that I know of. One would have expected him (at that time) to do everything he promised he would do in the legislation because THAT'S what President's do. * had not shown his true colors yet. Perhaps there were a few members of the senate who knew exactly what * was planning, but I just don't see how.

In hindsight, it was a terrible vote and hindsight is 20/20, but I have never held the vote against Kerry (or anyone else for that matter), simply because * had not yet declared himself King, and Congress had every reason to expect him to fulfill his promises of going through the U.N., etc. I get so tired of the attacks against decent Dems, because shrub was going to do what he was going to do, and as one of the other OPs says - the Republicans OWN this war. It's theirs. It isn't John Kerry's, nor is it anyone else who made the mistake of believing the pResident would act like a President.

[saltpoint]

53. As reports continue to delineate, the Bush administration furtively

decided to attack Iraq without basis, with no evidence of WsMD, and if necessary, no collaboration from anybody -- including other allies, the UN, and Congress.

That attitude might be worth the strident objection you posit. Laying it onto one U.S. Senator, no matter his vote, is lopsided and way off.

Bush's war. That's what it is. It might be Rumsfeld's and Cheney's and Perle's and so forth, but the historians will name it properly: Bush's war in Iraq.

I think that's the focus historians will agree on, and I think they will have gotten it exactly right.

[Yollam]

61. I agree with you there.

But it is supposed to be the job of the congress to make war. There was a reason why the framers made the Constitution that way. There will be no end to the wars of convenience as long as the War Powers Act stays in effect and a formal declaration of war is unnecessary to murder another country without cause. In the short term, the blame rests with Bushco, but they have taken advantage of a long-term abdication of responsibility by the Congress, one that nobody seems interested in correcting in the least.

[saltpoint]

72. Yollam, do you remember the bleak, flat-spirited landscape after

Nixon crushed McGovern in 1972? It was a landslide devastation of the peace movement.

A short while later, Dick Nixon was resigning, rather than face articles of impeachment, which given the composition of Congress at that time, would surely have passed.

I would offer that history has many cards it hasn't played yet, and we are none of us certain what's left in the deck.

But it's a big deck and I think Mr. Bush and his administration face an uncertain and perhaps unpleasant legal future.

[sandnsea]

59. If Bush had lied for a Declaration of War

It would have been the same thing. He's the one that lied. The OSP pushed the CIA to manipulate intelligence reports. The DSM. All of it. Bush would still have been the one responsible. Whether lying to get a Declaration of War or an Authorization with a defined process. Bush did it.

[Yollam]

66. Yes, Bush lied.

"The OSP pushed the CIA to manipulate intelligence reports." Yes, but even their tweaked reports clearly stated the doubts that the WMD were there. The case even as Bushco presented it was as flimsy as the balsa wood planes they were trying to scare the public with. The very notion that a crippled, starved nation which had never given material support to terrorists, never attacked the US - whose only crime was invading the tiny nation of Kuwait over a border dispute with the implied permission of the first Bush administration was a THREAT to the US is positively ludicrous. Before the massive PR blitz by the administration and their cronies in the media, 70% of Americans in polls were against attacking Iraq. Within months, they had whittled that down to a minority, and dems in congress went with the flow. Period.

[sandnsea]

71. WMD are always a concern

That's all the IWR was supposed to do, force inspectors back into Iraq. In order to clarify the "tweaks" in the CIA reports.

Bush still would have launched a PR campaign to launch a war, he still would have lied, he still would have found an excuse to deploy troops.

Dems in Congress did not go with the flow. In March of 2003, 95% of them called for the inspections and diplomacy to continue, for Bush not to go to war.

[Old and In the Way]

62. I am happy to provide the 5th vote to get this kicked onto Greatest.

Very well stated bigtree.

We really need to revisit the context and environment as to when the IWR was taken.

(1) Just a year after 9/11. Bush was still enjoying significant and broad support from the American public. A clear majority were willing to hit someone, anyone for 9/11 payback.

(2) At this point in his Presidency, Bush had no track record of lying to the American people. Iraq was his narrative to spin with little or no effort by the media to challenge this. Hell, they were pretty much all for a war, they know a ratings winner when they see one. And remember all of the Saddam=9/11 conflation that this administration was doing. We know the MSM did their part to amplify this message.

(3) There was a mid-term election coming up and the Republicans were going to use a no vote to paint Democrats as Saddam lovers.

(4) Many of us here knew what was in store. We knew about PNAC and we had dark thoughts about the 9/11 and the Patriot Act. There was no investigation of 9/11 at this point. Many still think that this administration LIHOP'd 9/11. Had Democrats voted, en block, against the IWR, could another 'event' have occurred? If it had, no doubt Iraqi's would have been blamed. Along with martial law being declared, the MSM would have branded the Democrats the "Party of Saddam Appeasers'. Game over.

(5) Or, worse, there really was compelling evidence and a plan for an attack. If you are Kerry and you vote no and a dirty bomb goes off in Worcester....who is blamed? We were 'pretty sure' that the WMD proposition was a lie...but no one here could state that with absolute certainty. If I were in Kerry's shoes, how would I finisse my vote if 10,000 people in Worcester are killed and the city is uninhabitable for, say, the next few hundred years?

This was a Republican vote and a loser either way the Democrats voted. Vote to support the IWR and incur the wrath of the politically tuned progressives or vote against with options 3, 4, or 5 to be used as a hammer against the Party.

Under the circumstances, Kerry made his position quite clear and he voted to support the Office of the President. I think this is a critical distinction that we need to acknowledge. We didn't trust Bush and I doubt Kerry did. But Bush created,after the fact, a terrible precedent where he lied to Congress and the American people about the causus belli on Iraq. It was a bald-faced lie. He has damaged the Office of the Presidency for decades to come. The next time there is a compelling need for quick,bi-partisan support on a real gathering threat, that President is going to face a political opposition who will remember how Bush used this resolution for crass partisan politics.

Blaming Kerry in his principled position takes the heat off of the crimes of Bushis making. Kerry did not hold a gun to Bush's head and demand that he attack Iraq. Far from it. He made it clear that war could only be waged if Iraq did not cooperate with the UN inspectors. Saddam was doing that and the results were no WMD. Bush invaded in spite of that. The fault does not lie with any Democrat who had bogus and incomplete information on the facts...it squarely rests with George W. Bush and the Republicans who don't hold this pResident accountable for his war crimes. Anyone who chooses to spread the "Kerry voted for war" ought to get a 'thank you' note from Karl Rove.

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. Kicking for truth

Thanks, bigtree, for cutting through all the spin, lies, and bullshit on this issue. :patriot:

[Zorra]

77. I like and respect John Kerry, but cannot understand how someone so

aware and intelligent could ever trust Bu*h in any capacity, let alone giving him a blank check to go to war.

[saltpoint]

81. I feel that the next few months will produce information we do not now

have that will demonstrate that Bush deceived even the CIA. That may need to be adjusted to Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld running a government-within-a-government to superimpose their will OVER the CIA, and then blaming the CIA for the disaster.

I'm not insisting on details, only saying that all that happened to deceive others in the Iraq question has yet to be revealed. We know fragments, but can't yet see all the story.

I believe when more of the larger pieces of that puzzle are put into place, and Mr. Fitzgerald may assist us there, Mr. Bush et al are going to have a great deal more to answer for than even now.

And even now, those poll numbers are not looking real healthy.

[ginnyinWI]

82. there is a longer explanation out there, but

the short version is: he trusted Colin Powell as a man who told the truth. And Powell looked him straight in the eye and said that the WMD stuff was valid. Turns out, I guess, that Powell was also lied to.

If anyone has that quote of Kerry explaining it further, please post.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. So why did Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd not trust Powell..

At least not enough to vote for the resolution?

[Zhade]

112. It's like his vote to confirm Negroponte.

Bewildering, since he investigated IranContra and KNOWS about Negroponte.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Thank you

My point has always been that, agree or disagree, I respect the man's knowledge.

And that, ultimately, the final responsibility lies with the man who wanted war so badly he was willing to jin up intelligence to get it. Do we really think that such a man, faced with a failed IWR, would have stopped there? I say no.

Hence, the war and its consequences go to the man who wanted this war: George W. Bush.

[seabeyond]

88. you are right on. i have listened to both sides state kerry for war

and that is not what i see at all with the iwr vote nor kerry's words. he was absolutely not voting for a war. and he opposed war all along. and if kerry had been president we wouldnt have gone to war. clearly hence, we see bush was going to war regardless. i dotn see any reason to take ownership of this war away from bush and throw it on others that didnt ask for it. bush gets full responsibility. but i have never fallen for the in kerry's iwr vote he voted for bush war. he did not

[Egnever]

92. Sorry but no....

This vote was typical kerry of the last few years. He of little spine trying to get on both sides of the issue by on the one hand voting for it and on the other side saying but I didn't like it.

Anyone paying attention at the time KNEW bush had war on his mind and nothing else. He Forced this vote because the UN wouldn't bow down to his call for war in the first place hoping that if he could get congress to pass something that said we will go without your approval if you don't get on board, the UN would suddenly fall into line.

No way after the fact does Kerry or any other dem who voted for this crap get a pass based on some sentences he said on the floor that he didn't like it. Sorry no way. The vote on this piece of garbage was obvious.. NO .... unless of course you were placing your political career ahead of what was good for the nation. In which case you have no freaking business representing the american people in the first place. If you will lay down on something as important as the war what else are you willing to lay down for just to save political face.

And his cowardice didn't stop there. What about all the skipped votes during the primaries on controversial topics. With the excuse that his vote wouldn't have changed the outcome...Sory
Kerry may have been a brave man at one point and one willing to stand up and fight against the establishment , sadly that man is long gone.

If the Dem's are dumb enough to nominate this man again I will not vote for him. I am done voting for the establishment candidates because of the fear tactic would you rather have a republican in office? Well I have now lived through the worst president in history and if we are determined to put one sap in after another then what the hell lets hurry the destruction along so people can really get scared and maybe we can finally put in a real change of leadership.

I swallowed my bile last time and voted for him, but it wont happen again.

[dogday]

93. Here, let me lend this to you

[Egnever]

94. Was there something specific you disagree with?

Or are you just so in love with kerry you refuse to admit the truth about his cowardice?

Are you now going to say despite all the evidence now that bush hadn't already made his decision to go to war? Are you trying to say it wasn't telegraphed even at the time of this vote? Not only by his refusal to accept biden luger also a flawed bill but one that clearly would have required at least some accountability, But by things such as PNAC, valery plame, Reports of remote controlled airplanes that were actually pathetic balsa wood. Or maybe it was the aluminum tubes that were discounted before even being presented to the security council.

No mister tinfoil suit I am afraid bush was very clear in his intentions to attack Iraq from the get go and if Kerry was such a fool that he didn't see it....well theres no way in hell I would ever put him in the office of the president. He had a chance to show his metal in this last election and he failed miserably. Even now he can barely bring himself to admit that the IWR vote was a mistake. Hell he said during the election that if he had it to do over again he would vote the same way.

Kerry was once young and full of spit he is now old and cautious to a fault. Gone are the days of the fighting kerry only to be replaced by the creature he now is that blows in the political wind.

I want a leader someone with the guts to stand up and say this is what I believe and I am not afraid to say it.

I thought Dean was that man last time. Unfortunately somehow kerry miraculously went from last to first overnight and squashed those hopes.

Its highly likely that we will never be given the choice of a true leader as the powers that be don't want anything to do with the little peoples concerns. I surely wont continue to enable it though by falling in line and voting for the bad choice they choose to put op on my side of the aisle.

[dogday]

95. No I support Russ

I was being humorous because you are likely to get posts from those who do support Kerry and I wanted you to have protection.. But thanks for this second post, I enjoy reading them :hi:

[bigtree]

96. face it

John Kerry stood up and said loud and clear what he believes in. You choose to ignore his words and wallow in your own interpretation of his intent.

I can see it gets you all jazzed to call him a coward for his stance, Funny though, most of America at the time expected Bush to follow the dictate of Congress and exercise restraint as the resolution mandated. Bush disregarded Congress, the international community, and the will of the American people in his unilateral, preemptive assault.

The IWR does not restrict Congress from cutting off funds right now if they chose to. That would effectively end the occupation, so it's a curious argument that the IWR gives Bush so much power. He has the authority to commit forces for a period of time without first getting approval from Congress. There is nothing short of canceling the Pentagon's payroll which would have stopped Bush from proceeding with the buildup and deployment. After that it would be a miracle for the republican Congress to withhold funds and pull the rug from under troops actively engaged there.

Sen. Kerry and others saw the same reports of Bush claiming that he was going to invade no matter what the Congress did. Bush claimed at the time that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted there, claiming the right to commit forces under the War Powers Act, as is referenced in the resolution. Sen. Kerry and others sought to direct Bush's actions through the resolution, attempting to restrain him through the resolution. In fact, the language of restraint is one of the markers that Bush illegally disregarded. Even the UN's Annan said what Bush did was illegal. His subsequent actions exceeded the provisions contained in Nunn-Lugar, the alternative that some folks who oppose Kerry's actions say they would have supported (Dean). Did you expect Bush to follow that resolution if it passed? Even with all of the qualifying statements he's been attaching to passed legislation he signs into law?

But, don't let me interrupt your name calling. Courageous that.

[Egnever]

98. Right here you join the cows

"Funny though, most of America at the time expected Bush to follow the dictate of Congress and exercise restraint"

You apparently weren't paying attention at the time either. At no point was bush showing restraint in the run up to this war. He cut corners at every opportunity. The fact that you and kerry and any person in america chose to ignore that and wear rose colored glasses thinking he might be reasonable does not make it so.

Millions of people worldwide poured into the streets trying to stall this failure from happening and you want to excuse kerry cause he bought into the fawning over bush that was going on because of the MSM push for war?

So those millions were idiots? Even though they were right and kerry and your bunch who thought this cook for a president would be reasonable cause they told him to be were right?

Sorry but the facts all point to your crowd being dead wrong.

And the millions in the streets knew it long before the IWR kerry did too he just chose politics over prudence. The proof comes from his reluctance to admit it was a mistake all through the election campaign but his apparent capitulation now that its clear its safe to do so.

Damn my lying eyes!

Kerry is a political coward.

[bigtree]

99. Again

no one, I suspect not even Kerry expected Bush to follow the law. He had said that he wouldn't. That didn't release Kerry from his goal of holding Bush accountable and to attempt to direct him back to the UN and into an inspection regime that would have the prospect of defusing the confrontation. That was his stated goal. It was a long shot, but far short from some sort of naivete.

Americans weren't idiots in expecting that their president would follow the law.

Btw, you have a real nasty style of debate. Full of insults and aspersions. Not much of an argument though, except that you were smart and those who favored a different course were dumb. Same goal though, no war. Neither Kerry nor I wanted war. But, if Egnever say so it must be . . .

[Hippo_Tron]

107. Kerry does give a very good explanation for supporting the IWR...

In his senate floor speech. He basically said that his support was contingent on trusting Bush to follow what was written in the resolution. That's great and all, but why was he so naive as to trust Bush when people who did not have nearly the information that US Senators had, did not trust Bush and were right. I don't believe that Kerry was that naive. I believe that he wanted to be President and took some bad advice. I think that Kerry is a great person and a great Senator but he fucked this one up big time.

[Clarkie1]

110. The key: HE WANTED TO BE PRESDENT.

Had to stand up to them Iraqis, show he wasn't partisan, and support the President.

Maybe it looked like a good choice politically at the time, but it was a poor choice for America.

Senator Kennedy called it the most important vote of his life. Kerry should have listened.

[bigtree]

115. He wanted to be president to make a positive difference for the country

He never gave any indication that he intended his vote to help him politically. I think he felt that it was a hard thing to go against the majority of his party. I wonder though if you listened at all to Sen. Kennedy as he campaigned for John across the country? Kennedy respects John. Would you listen to Kennedy?

[Clarkie1]

122. He knew voting against him would open him up to charges of being a

weak on national defense liberal. I can't presume to tell you why Kennedy supported Kerry. I imagine because they are both from Massachusetts and good friends. I'm not from Massachusetts.

[bigtree]

117. everyone knew war with Iraq would be a disaster, including Kerry

John Kerry didn't want war. He voted for the IWR because of the provisions that he and others fought to have included which mandated restraint, as I outlined above. He voted for the resolution in an attempt to forstall the war that everyone knew Bush was bent on. It was a longshot, but quite different from some sort of naievete. No one thought the Democrats would prevail with their alternative, nor did anyone believe Bush would be restrained by a no vote from the minority. Sen. Kerry's vote was made with all of the political knowledge that the rest of the country had. It doesn't make sense to claim that he operated out of political expediency when he had no way of knowing what the political effect of his vote would be, or even what the inspection team that was deployed to Iraq as a result of the resolution would produce. Who knows what would have occured if Bush hadn't cut them off short and invaded?

Remember, there is nothing exclusive to the resolution that give Bush anymore play in Iraq than the Congress has subsequently allowed with their overwhelming votes in favor of the funding bills which followed the initial invasion. The IWR doesn't give Bush the power to deploy forces, he already has that power inherent in a loophole in the War Powers Act. In fact, Bush disregarded the key provisions of the resolution. It's a strained argument that he also was empowered by it.

[_dynamicdems]

104. OH, I see. A Deniac with crushed hopes. ::plays violin:: n/t

[Yollam]

100. BTW, Kerry also voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act...

...just one more thing to add to the list of offenses...

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. "Offenses"

Better hang Boxer and Kennedy from your Tree of Righteous Purity, then.

Add Feingold while you're at it - his vote FOR Asscroft ENABLED the Patriot Act to exist.

HANG THEM ALL!!!!!


What a fucking farce posts like yours are.

[zulchzulu]

102. Kerry voted for the UN, not PNAC...

Granted, Kerry has said that he regrets that vote...he trusted the rule of law and trusted that the President (whoever he or she was) would respect the rule of law and be strong to their word...and respect the UN resolutions involved.

The IWR vote was a vote for thr UN to follow the steps in the resolution, namely to continue with inspections for WMD. Without the IWR, there would have been NO inspections. It was not (as Republicans and others distort) a vote "for the war".

The biggest mistake for Kerry and the IWR vote historically was that he trusted Bush and his word. No more...

[Clarkie1]

106. Why then did these 23 senators have the political courage to vote NO?

KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was...

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

"In your life?" King asked.

"Absolutely" Kennedy answered.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. <snip>

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

These are the senators who voted NO on the IWR. They were the true patriots that day. They didn't let the politics of fear dictate their vote, and they did their duty:

Akaka (D-HI):patriot:
Bingaman (D-NM):patriot:
Boxer (D-CA):patriot:
Byrd (D-WV):patriot:
Chafee (R-RI):patriot:
Conrad (D-ND):patriot:
Corzine (D-NJ):patriot:
Dayton (D-MN):patriot:
Durbin (D-IL):patriot:
Feingold (D-WI):patriot:
Graham (D-FL):patriot:
Inouye (D-HI):patriot:
Jeffords (I-VT):patriot:
Kennedy (D-MA):patriot:
Leahy (D-VT):patriot:
Levin (D-MI):patriot:
Mikulski (D-MD):patriot:
Murray (D-WA):patriot:
Reed (D-RI):patriot:
Sarbanes (D-MD):patriot:
Stabenow (D-MI):patriot:
Wellstone (D-MN):patriot:
Wyden (D-OR):patriot:

The rest might as well have simply remained silent.

[bigtree]

114. I think the courage thing is overblown

They knew they didn't have the votes to stop the republican version. They voted their consciences I hope. They all stated their views. John Kerry did also.

You have nothing to back up your insinuation that John Kerry's vote was made out of fear. Only by ignoring or disregarding his words, before and after the vote, before and after the invasion, can you be so callous about his motivations.

John Kerry has legislated as a liberal Democrat for the entirety of his career, with the exception of a handful of votes which didn't pass the progressive muster. To vote as he did was an act that cut across the grain of his past. He took great pains to explain that he was doing so to attempt to steer Bush back to the UN and to initiate an inspection regime (Ritter) which could actually verify Bush's claims and perhaps forstall war. His vote intended to eliminate the need for an invasion by taking the WMD issue off of the table. It wasn't a certainty that it would work, not by a longshot. Bush had been saying for days that he intended to invade with or without congressional approval.

I thought Sen. Kerry's vote was as sincere and as 'courageous' as the other's which intended to stifle Bush's plan to attack Iraq. He voted for a resolution which mandated restraint. Bush ignored that mandate in the legislation and rushed to war. Bush's action was, in fact, a betrayal of the trust the senator had given him with his vote. It was a violation of the very resolution that folks are claiming gave him authority to invade. That authority is nto exclusive to the IWR. It is a function of a loophole in the War Powers Act which gives the president the authority to deploy forces first and seek approval later. The first such approval was sought by Bush with the first funding bill, $87b. John Kerry voted against that bill. That was, in fact, the first legislative action that that particular Congress could have taken to stop the military action, short of a unified Congress in opposition, which wasn't going to happen with the republican majority.

The funding bills are the only direct lever that Congress has available, outside of censure or impeachment, to stop a war. They can call in Cabinet officers and officials before hearings, call for their dismissal, etc.. But, their most relevant function is funding. Nothing in the IWR prevents Congress from pulling the plug today, cutting off funds for Iraq. The money would dry up and Bush would be forced to bring our troops home. That's what makes the argument that the IWR gave Bush so much power, curious. He only has as much power as the Congress tolerates, and look who holds sway over that. That's not a function of the IWR. That's the measure of the party in power and they should bear the brunt of blame for our initial invasion and the subsequent disaster of an occupation; not the senator from Massasachusets who tried to stop the war from happening in the first place, like all of the rest of the folks who opposed it.

But, you seem to feel comfortable sorting out who's courageous and who isn't. Good luck with that.

[Clarkie1]

121. I don't think it's overblown at all. Kerry made a politically calculated

move. So did Hillary, and so did Edwards. I am not so naive as to think that wasn't a consideration for him and others.

[bigtree]

123. that's not supported by any fact,

not by anything other than innuendo.

experience shows that to be no more significant than the ones who spread the tripe.

[Clarkie1]

125. Neither are the conclusions you draw in your OP. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

126. Could we just agree to disagree boys.

Some of us see something different in the man than some of you. It's really a judgement call, you know?

[Clarkie1]

127. Agreed. n/t

[wtmusic]

111. This issue can still pull in 110 posts?

I thought I bumped the button on my time machine!

[DanCa]

113. Supreme Court would Senator Kerry have picked Sam Alito?

I didn't care for IWV but I decided to forgive Senator Kerry because being able to chose scotus appointments was also a huge part of the last election cycle and probably the 08 elections as well.
The only problems I had with Senator Kerry was that he was a senator with a long paper trail (sound familair doesn't it) with which the GOP could distort at will.
This is why I would perfer a non senator as our next appointee.
However with that said I would still vote for Sen. Kerry, he is smart, served our country honorabley and has great taste in muscic. :D Shout out to the Boss.
I really wish the left would realize that theres a big picture here and that we can't let the rethugs set the domestic agenda and foreign policy as well.

[sendero]

116. Aw jeez.....

Another tortuous justification, complete with endless quotes and bluster, for us dumbasses who just cannot understand how CORRECT it was for Kerry to do what he did.

Yeah, right.

[bigtree]

118. jeez

another criticism full of invective but few supportable facts

cute.

[sendero]

119. It's all been hashed out here a million times...

.. but somehow, just somehow, there are a series of posters here who cannot let 3 days go by without posting yet another long series of quotes and links designed to confuse the stupid into not believing what actually happened.

Here's a FACT for you: Actions speak louder than words. Words, words and more words explaining why someone has to do something they know is wrong, as a political cover, impresses no one but the stupid. Did JK think Bush was going to hear his words and heed them? Please stop insulting us.

Second FACT: JK said "every vote would be counted". Here's another time when his actions fall well short of his words. I'm not forgetting, and I'm not letting these endless propaganda posts go unanswered. People can choose to believe whatever they want but I'll say one more thing: different people can look at the same "FACTS" and come to a different conclusion. My conclusion? When there is significant political risk, JK folds like a paper napkin.

[bigtree]

120. sendero . . .

Kerry did what he believed in. You may not accept that, but it sure seems to take a bundle of innuendo and a load of insults to describe how he acted otherwise. Please stop insulting me.

Kerry doesn't have the power to overcome the mechanisms which seated Bush. Bush's ascension didn't rest on Kerry's concession. Sen. Kerry did, however, pursue the full counting of votes following the election, both legislatively and otherwise. I've posted some of his legislative efforts to have the votes counted.

btw, I'm serious, not (a) series.

[sendero]

129. Fair enough..

.... we all have our standards. We all have a level of action we expect that we feel would be commensurate with the level of infraction.

Kerry has met your level, he didn't even approach mine. Kerry had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to DO SOMETHING tangible and real to get the public to see the election fraud for what it is. He did not.

I will respect your right to hold the opinion that Kerry is handling this the right way. I demand the right to hold an opposing opinion. He failed MY PERSONAL litmus test, and I have every right to have that test and every right to try to persuade others to agree. And it speaks to leadership here, that is the whole issue.

[bigtree]

130. I think you do a great service for the party when you challenge us

to be more proactive and true to our beliefs. I hope you continue.

[sendero]

132. Well..

... you are somewhat more magnanimous than many here, and I appreciate that.

I realize that my rhetoric is a bit over the top sometimes, I feel things strongly and I accept that just because I do, that doesn't make me "right".

But I do feel like I have a right to make my point of view known. I NEVER start threads about JK, or negative threads about any candidate or Dem official. Those who wish I'd shut up should just be happy about that :)

[LittleClarkie]

124. 1. BigTree doesn't pipe up much about Kerry,

so he's not one of those who "can't let three days go by"

And he's not trying to "confuse the stupid". He's merely disagreeing with you.

[welshTerrier2]

128. Ted Kennedy: "The best vote I ever cast in the Senate"

a majority of Democrats voted against the IWR ... I commend them for doing so ...

has Kerry not said his vote was a mistake? will Kerry vote against continued war funding in Iraq if those funds aren't specifically used to withdraw the troops and for other troops needs such as medical support? will he go along with Tom Friedman's theme that he would choose a nuclear Iran over a bush-led war to rid Iran of nukes?

it seems to not be helpful to Kerry, if that's your objective, to raise issues like the IWR at this time ... suffice it to say that i was very disappointed in his vote and I'm glad he's standing up against the war now ...

[LWolf]

131. Congress' responsibility here, as I see it,

was to be intelligent enough to see through the Bush regime's dishonesty, acknowledge the real intent to go to war, and make sure that the march to war did not happen. It sure wasn't sensible to assume that GWB gave a rat's ass what the UN thought. Or that the UN would restrain him when Congress couldn't or wouldn't.

Regardless of how you try to spin it, the fact remains that Congresspeople who voted for the IWR did not do so.

[bigtree]

133. I just don't think the minority party had a chance in hell

of stopping the invasion. Sen. Kerry said at the time that he hoped to steer Bush back to the UN and into a process of renewed inspections. The inspectors were admitted in and were doing their job when Bush jumped the process and invaded. That to me says that he would have jumped the process no matter what Congress decided to authorize. But, it was certainly clear that they had the votes to defeat the Democratic alternative. Nothing Kerry did further enabled Bush to war beyond what he already had at his disposal and had indicated he was prepared to use, authorization from Congress or not.

Despite the language in the resolution about the extent of Bush's authority to war with Iraq, the power to deploy forces was inherent in a loophole in the War Powers Act, which was referenced in the resolution. And despite the view that the resolution gives him unlimited authority, he has no more power than Congress allows with the funding of his wars. That's the extent of their power to restrain him outside of a bully pulpit, which hadn't been as effective as Bush's saber rattling before the vote in persuading Americans against the invasion in numbers which would cause the majority members in Congress to reconsider their support.

I don't think that anyone in opposition to Bush trusted Bush to restrain himself, that's why some, including Kerry decided to include language mandating such restraint into the resolution and throw their support behind it. It almost worked. We got inspectors in. We have their report and their testimony to bolster the case we made against invasion then and against the revisionism now about WMDs.

So, that's my view. When you dismiss it as spin you don't actually address the point I make. I don't think it was un-intelligent for Sen. Kerry to try to limit the parameters the president was going to operate under through the one resolution which was certain to pass before Bush went ahead and executed his planned assault. It was a longshot to be sure, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as naive. It was a good faith effort to set the terms of engagement in the face of the certain defeat of the Democratic alternative. (don't forget the president's potential to veto)

Bush completely disregarded the restraint mandated in the resolution. He doesn't use the document to justify his unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. He can't he pushed past the resolution. He disregarded the provisions in the resolution that mandated exhausting all peaceful means and a return to the UN security council. Not only didn't the resolution give him any new authority to deploy forces, it mandated against the course that he ultimately took.

I completely understand the symbolic importance of those who voted against the legislation. There's was a correct vote if they intended to stop Bush in his tracks and send out a unified message of opposition to war. But, Sen. Kerry also was intent on stopping Bush from invading. Most of the venom against him is misplaced and inappropriate considering that he has opposed everything Bush has done in Iraq since the vote that enabled inspectors to be admitted, and never intended that Bush sidestep the restraint outlined in the legislation.

The fact that Bush broke the law that Kerry signed on to should reflect completely on Bush and his regime. Instead some are content to knock Kerry around for expecting the president to follow the law. I guarantee you that, if Democrats were in control of Congress, we would see prosecutions and Kerry would be at the front of that group of concern.

That's not spin. I just choose to take Sen. Kerry at his word.

[LWolf]

134. Chance in hell or not, it was still the right thing to do.

Doing the right thing, even when the majority opposes you, is still winning, in my book.

[bigtree]

135. right thing / wrong thing

there's the rub