Kerry "profoundly" regrets his IWR vote. MTP

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

MR. RUSSERT: Of all the votes you’ve cast in the Senate, is the vote in favor of the war in Iraq in October 2002 the one you would most like to take back?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/page/2/


SEN. KERRY: Profoundly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/page/3/



Finally! We have closure on this age old question. It wasn't a tortured decision to hold Chimp's feet(paws?) to the fire, it was a "profoundly" regrettable decision.

At long last, our great national nightmare of spin is over.

:party:

[Orsino]

1. It took him 3.5 years?

Sounds pretty tortured.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Who was on the rack?

Him or us? :shrug:


:party:

[janx]

132. OH

fercryinoutLOUD!

:rofl:

[vssmith]

2. Sorry about that but...

there were people smart enough not to make that vote!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. A majority of Dems didn't put their foot in that trap.

150+ Dems said "NO."

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

137. All 3 of mine voted NO

I have the copies of the vote no letters I sent to them back in Oct 2002. I still have the letters received from them. They voted NO. I cherish these letters.

Levin, Stupak, Stabenow.

[INdemo]

18. First of all the authorization to go to war was only if Saddam failed to

allow the inspectors to finish their job..And the inspections were underway if you remember. Bush completely ignored the UN authority and the inspectors were called home if you remember..So Bush did not have one single vote of authorization to go to war in the manner he did.

[Catrina]

26. It was obvious to many people that when Bush pushed that vote

right before the election, he was not to be trusted. I trust my instincts and although I was pretty new to politics at the time, I knew if they gave him anything that the public could interpret as an okay to go to war, he would go.

Half the Democrats in Congress and the Senate apparently knew that also. Are we psychic? No, but who in their right mind would have trusted that man and his band of neocons? It was obvious they were itching to go to war.

Now, that it's all turned out so badly, (as many of us predicted, even people who had a minimal knowledge of these things) it's finally okay to say 'wish I hadn't trusted him' ~

I'm sick of politicians playing politics. We called and begged them not to do it. If this was a family member, I'd have a hard time forgiving them, especially considering the horrible consequences. Why should we not teach politicians that if they want our trust, they need to listen and not put their careers first. This isn't about Kerry, he's just one person. It's about all of them learning to pay attention to the people they represent ~

Allowing politicians to get away with these things, just encourages them to do it again and again, because they know we will forget ~ it's about the country. This will happen again. The last time they were afraid if they voted 'no' it would affect their campaigns. They need to know if they don't do the right thing, they won't get a second chance imo.

Too many dead people ~ there's no second chance for them and we have a situation now that no one knows how to fix ~ and Bush got to play his 'we're in a time of war so I can do anything I want' nonsense. Sorry, but I'm glad he finally realizes it, but it's a little too late for a lot of people ~

[tomp]

29. so why does kerry profoundly regret his vote?

he should be regretting that bush went to war in contravention of the authority given by the vote. but that's not what kerry said; he regrets the vote. hmmm....

[INdemo]

36. Well because the MSM interpreted the vote as a outright approval to

go to war and with all the hoop-la the public understood the vote to be that blanket approval..So all those that voted yes supposedly gave Bush this outright approval. Kerry regrets it and probably every other Democratic Senator except for Lieberman.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Bzzt! Nope.

Those against the vote argued the language of the bill.

Those who supported candidates that voted for the IWR argued their candidate's bullshit reason.

In this situation, Kerry supporters case falls flat. :thumbsdown:

Kerry says so himself. End of story.

[Zhade]

131. Finally, the rabid Kerry fans willing to lie about his vote...

...are set straight by their hero himself!

I think I respect him a smidgen more, now!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

194. As do I.

[arcos]

32. Would the war have been ok if no inspectors were allowed? nt

[INdemo]

38. Good Question

Lets go back to 1962..Ya know if the Republicans would have had their way we would have invaded Cuba and the US and Russia would have been shooting Nukes at each other and we would'nt be setting here. My point, its always been the Republican way to shoot and ask questions later..With Bush and Cheney ..they would have invaded regardless of the status of inspectors.. O I L

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Bad question. NO!

Let's have less information! Are you serious? :shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

4. Edwards apologized for his vote

as well, I don't recall when specifically. I'd have a lot more respect for quite a few Dems if they admitted they made a mistake and apologized for their votes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Edward's apology was the precursor to Whoresert's question to Kerry.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to October of 2002, when you stood up on the floor of the Senate and said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, the means to deliver them perhaps to the U.S., potentially nuclear weapons, and then voted to authorize the president to go to war. Your running mate, the man you selected to be the next president of the United States, John Edwards, was on this program. He wrote an op-ed piece first in The Washington Post, and he wrote this: “I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told - and what many of us believed and argued - was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.” Was it a mistake for you to vote for the war in 2002?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/page/2/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. -snip-

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. I’ve said so many times, many times since then.

MR. RUSSERT: And you take responsibility for it?

SEN. KERRY: You better believe I take responsibility for it. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m here today, Tim. You know, last night, late at night, I went down to the Wall, the Vietnam Wall. I was amazed by the numbers of people there, 10:30, 11:00 at night, it’s incredible. You walk down that ramp, and as you go down it gets deeper and deeper, and the wall gets higher and higher, and you see these names after names after names; thousands, tens of thousands. They were added to that wall. They died after our leaders knew the policy wasn’t working. And I believe I have a moral responsibility, as we all do in America, to get this right for our soldiers.

Our soldiers have done their jobs. They can’t resolve this issue. This is not to be resolved militarily, it can’t be done from a Humvee or a helicopter. It has to be done politically, diplomatically. You’ve got to resolve the difference between Shia and Sunni. You’ve got to give the Sunni enough power to be safe. You’ve got to give them a source of revenue. You’ve got to reconcile these differences. And Ambassador Khalilzad, who’s a good man, and struggling to do this, cannot do it alone. The absence of the president, the absence of real leadership, the absence of this diplomatic effort is the key, and I refuse to be a member of the United States Senate and add people to the next wall for Iraq because we didn’t do what was necessary to protect our troops.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169680/page/2/

[sandnsea]

44. Because he missed it when Kerry said it

Well before Edwards did, being the ace reporter that he is. :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

64. It's amazing when people ask for that which has already occurred

isn't it.

Over at Kos, I had someone ask "When is Kerry going to introduce legislation on Iraq." Um. He did. If someone is going to criticize someone, it would be ever so nice if that person paid attention to the man, lest that person run the risk of looking like a shmuck.

[Zhade]

133. Kerry himself now admits it was a vote for the war!

Wow, that's good to hear.

Now THAT can be put to rest - unless Kerryites think they know Kerry's mind better than HE does!

[Lorien]

11. Absolutely

but acknowledging that they have made mistakes would take a wisdom and maturity that seem fairly rare in politics today.

[bliss_eternal]

21. Agreed--

but if they learned to be that mature and frank, they could garner more trust and votes, imo. :hi:

[YDogg]

5. I wish he had been more clear on this years ago.

I'm just sayin'. I think he's been trying to hard to appeal to too many people, rather than to do what he thinks is absolutely right. And if he truly thought his vote was right, it's too bad this is what he's saying now. Not bashing Kerry, just wish his position was more clearly stated from the beginning.

For all of bush's faults, he at least has a *reputation* for never backing down. Even though facts don't support this reputation, all of the time.

[ProSense]

8. Backing down? Kerry regrets Bush is a liar. Bush on the other hand

is just a liar:

Bush Top 10 Flip-Flops
http://www.perrspectives.com/features/Bush10Flips.htm

[YDogg]

14. But I think the Kool-Aid Drinkers still believe he's a tough guy ...

... who doesn't back down / flip-flop / etc. They don't let the truth interfere with their fantasy view of bush as a strongman, but buy into his carefully crafted reputation (however fallacious) of being determined and strong.

[YDogg]

15. Air Force One and the Farmer

Air Force One crashed in the middle of rural America. Panic stricken, the Secret Service mobilized and descended on the farm in force. When they got there, the wreckage was clear. The aircraft was totally destroyed, with only a burned hulk left smoldering in a tree line that bordered a farm. Secret Service descended upon the smoking hulk but could find no remains of the crew or the President's staff. To their amazement, a lone farmer was plowing a field not too far away as if nothing at all happened. They hurried over to surround the man's actor. "Sir," the senior Secret Service agent asked, panting and out of breath. "Did you see this terrible accident happen?" "Yep. Sure did." The man muttered unconcernedly. "Do you realize that is the President of the United States' airplane?" "Yep." "Were there any survivors?" the agent gasped. "Nope. They's all kilt straight out." The farmer sighed cutting of his tractor motor. "I done buried them all myself. Took most of the morning." "The President of the United States is DEAD?" The agent gulped in disbelief. "Yep, he kept a-saying he wasn't ... but you know what a liar he is!"

[glitch]

30. OMG burst out laughing on this. Going to spread it around. Thanks! nt

[IdaBriggs]

111. Just sent this one out to a lovely list that will "not" appreciate it.

Thanks for sharing it! :)

[radio4progressives]

179. .....

[roguevalley]

28. I want someone who is willing to speak up when it will cost something,

not when its 70% in agreement the war sucked. Three.five years ago would have been nice. If I could see this coming and I only have a computer and modem AND live in Alaska, they have no excuse. They voted for themselves and the graveyards are filled. Also, prezeldent psycho is going to use this vote as a mandate for NUKING IRAN. Good grief. I wish they had had real guts and character when IT COUNTED, not now when it DOESN'T.

[tabasco]

54. I have to agree.

Kerry was playing politics and he probably knew it was the wrong vote when he made it.

I'm glad he's not still saying he would still vote for it, though.

But he missed the boat by a long shot on the war vote.

My Senators (Sarbanes, Mikulski) were wise enough to vote against it.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. And I am glad he said that

I wish he had said that sooner.

[Old and In the Way]

10. You should never have trusted this administration, John.

Reading your reasoning to support the IWR assumed you were dealing with an honorable President who was looking out for the best interests of the American people. We all know now that it was not the case.

How about sponsering a new resolution to take back the war resolution and take away the war powers that the boyking is using to destroy this country?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

12. He's just another self-important political hack.

I'll never trust him to do the right thing again- he betrayed us all when he made that concession phone call to *bush. I've seen no reason to believe he's changed since then.

[jsamuel]

16. I have

[seabeyond]

22. bullshit. dont trust him. i do n/t

[ShortnFiery]

48. Roger that!

IMO, these Senators didn't have much that was beyond what was provided to "The People."

Every Senator who voted for this war, does NOT have my vote in the future for even dog-catcher! I made a promise to myself that NONE of them deserve support. They voted "the political careers" over the needs of the people.

How many innocent people have died because these a**holes were merely afraid of BushCo.?

The DLCers convinced me to vote for him in 2004 but NOT AGAIN!

[blm]

55. Name one Democrat who has effected this nation's history more positively

over the last 35 years than Kerry has and use the historic and congressional record.

I say you can't.

Because if you take Kerry out of the last 35 years, you would be extending the Vietnam war, postponing the first legislation that protected gays, kept IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America, and CIA drugrunning from being investigated, the first attempt to expose the global terror networks and their funding would go unnoted, Clean Elections bill would go unwritten, ANWR would have been drilled a decade ago, Alito would go unfilibustered, etc......

[Dawgs]

69. Hey, quit using facts in this thread!!!

Don't you know this should only be used for bashing Dems. God knows the Republicans are such good people that they aren't worth attacking. Let's attack our own.

Shit, I know it's a lot easier than actually being a Senator, but that's just me.

[Zhade]

135. Why not just coronate him already?

The way you paint him as America's Savior, you're think he was Jesus or something.

But then, you've never been wrong about him before...oh, except for the fact that even HE admits it was a vote for war.

Your hero-worship is a fascinating case study - in how NOT to think for oneself.

Glad you like him, but your inisistence that he is the best thing since sliced bread is, frankly, irrational.

[ProSense]

17. From the first debate:

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

Snip...

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Another -snip- from the article you reference:

LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[ProSense]

34. This is a transcript from the first debate.

Kerry would have provided the leadership, as he said, to get the troops out.

[sandnsea]

45. Providing we have leadership

Which we didn't have and didn't get.

Not to mention, saying troops were dying for a mistake would have been a real winning strategy. He lost on security as it is.

[cyclezealot]

19. With Kerry's staff, don't understand how he not knew.

I did . All you had to do is follow the BBC for news. Did not Colin Powell looked strained before the UN with his Falsified "British White Paper", we all knew to be a fraud. Kerry. Better late than never, I guess.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. He knew.

nt

[GreenArrow]

25. he knew.

You'll notice that these Johnny come lately apologizers are always lamenting and regreting their "vote," and not the war itself, a war which was unnecessary and unwarranted under any of the various rationales given.

[cyclezealot]

41. When I called Kerry's office

Told his staff, if Kerry voted for Bush's deceitful war I would never vote for Kerry. I did. I am a hypocrite.They know they have us by the short hairs. When can we do something about that dilema, that won't at the same time help the Repugs. I favor Proportional Representation.

[GreenArrow]

49. I voted for him too

Not because I liked him especially, but because I wanted to see Bush repudiated by the American voting public. I wanted him rebuked, embarrased and humbled (as if that is even possible). I have no faith that he or his will see any sort of punishment for their actions. I voted for Kerry in spite of his IWR vote, and in spite of his choice of pro-war phoney slickster John Edwards, but repudiation of Bush was not to be. I won't vote for their like again, and as far as I'm concerned, niether needs to run again; it's pretty clear (not that it wasn't before) that their principles and/or judgement are lacking. No amount of after-the-fact grandstanding and public "regrets" will matter. There was absolutely no justification for supporting the war on Iraq, which was and is a cold-blooded, cynical and murderous act, and I'm ashamed I voted for Kerry.

I don't know what the answer to the voting dillema is; PR voting would be nice. A skeptical and critical thinking populace is essential. For what it's worth, I suspect Bush cheated in 2004. It's a lot easier to accept that as opposed to considering that people actually voted for Bush in the numbers they supposedly did.

[karynnj]

66. In Kerry's case the reason is he did speak

out against going to war before Bush invaded. There wer 6 months between th evote and the invasion. Within that time there are several Kerry statements expressing hope the inspections could allow avoiding the war. He gave a speech at Georgetown in 2002 asking Bush not to rush into war. He also wrote an op-ed against going to war.

He has said his vote was wrong and that he profoundly regrets it, but he never would have gone to war if it were his decision and he very publicly said so before the invasion. (Which counters the he voted for political reasons logic - if the war went as Bush suggested and peace and harmony replaced Saddam - Kerry's anti-war comments would have been used by Bush to say he wasn't for the war.) I think Kerry and Tom Harkin were the only 2 who both voted for the IWR and critisized the war before it started. So, in their case to apologize for the war more directly than Kerry did would make no sense.

[never_get_over_it]

20. A few years before

Kerry ran for President I saw him in an interview on PBS and was blown away. I had never really paid too much attention to him - knew he was a liberal Dem from MA - but after that interview I thought he was FABULOUS - and then came the IWR - given what I know about his history - his returning from Viet Nam to challenge the leaders on that war - there is NO WAY he should have ever voted for IWR - I believe to the core of my being he did it for one reason and one rason only - he was running for President - he along with so many other Dems BROKE MY HEART that Oct day - and I have lost a great deal of respect for Kerry and the others - I am very happy he has finally come around but sadly for me it is too little too late - but I do hope now he and the other Dems will try to make amends by raising as much hell with this administration as possible and support our troops by getting them the hell out of Iraq NOW.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Glad to heart it; better late than never IMO.

[Golden Raisin]

31. Too friggin' little, too friggin' late.

Growing balls now doesn't do us any good. Does he also profoundly regret conceding "defeat" to Bush so quickly? Does he also profoundly regret voting for the original "Patriot" Act as well as the Re-Authorization?

[raysr]

33. Now, John, use every

asset and connection you have and DESTROY John O'Neill and the "Swift Boat Pigs".

[DerekG]

35. Only one action would redeem Kerry in my eyes

If it's contrition Senator Weathervane seeks, he'd best speak up before Nero launches those missile strikes on Iran.

C'mon John, here's a chance to wash some of that blood off your hands.

[sandnsea]

46. He did today

Why do I think it won't make a hill of beans difference to you.

“U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran.” And in this article it says the United States is contemplating the use of tactical nuclear devices against Iran. Would you support that?

SEN. KERRY: No. I think that it—that is, that is another example of the move-from-the-hip—shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration. For the United States of America, at a time when we’re already trying to wrestle with Iran and the, the proliferation of nuclear weapons—and North Korea, that is not paying attention to the six-party talks, partly because of what’s happening in Iraq, and they don’t need to—for us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Is there something that he could do that would make you

question your support?

He just admitted that his IWR vote was a "profound" mistake. Yet, you're stll spinning.

Or is the thing that would make you question your support his leaving the tortured logic behind?

[sandnsea]

56. No, I'm not

I understand the reason for saying the vote was a mistake and it's to try to get people to look at the war instead of endlessly haranguing on the vote. I could have told him that wouldn't work, because people who are obsessed with the vote are more interested in trashing Democrats anyway. Same crowd that's been trashing Democrats clear back to FDR. Bunch of people who will never be happy with the US because they hate a capitalist economy and aren't really Democrats, even if some of them don't see it themselves.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Horseshit.

People "obsessed" with the vote are concerned with the vote. Not trashing Dems.

M'Lord, bring more straw!

[sandnsea]

74. Here

This guy finally gets it, for the most part. It isn't complicated, unless you're just too cynical to accept that some politicians actually do say exactly what they mean.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/kerry-calls-to-respond-_b_18844.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. Colin Powell?

There is no way that Kerry is unfamiliar with Mai(My) Lai.

"Colin Powell," said Kerry. "I've known him a long time. I respect him, and I trust him. We sat down one-on-one and he showed me the evidence. He has since made it clear that he was fed false information, that he was misled too. And Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked closely with him, has been even more direct - that there was a small group there, a cabal run by Cheney and Wolfowitz, directing all the planning and leaving the rest of them out of the loop."

That's even less believable than "trusting" the Chimp. Now it's "trusting" the Chump.

[sandnsea]

77. Just sad

Everything in that piece and that's what you pick out. He probably should have used Wes Clark as an example of someone he listened to on Iraq, except for Wes Clark is flat out lying about what he said at the time. Funny how the liars from all sides have consistently taken less heat on Iraq than the ones who tried to do the right thing and put their integrity on the line to do it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

79. Very sad.

He tried to do the "right" thing.

This war is an abomination!

[sandnsea]

81. Which he said the day it started

And you well know it.

His only "crime" was being honest about what he'd have to do if he became President, which would be to be accountable for Iraqi lives as well as troop lives. Same as Howard Dean, who STILL isn't calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So why isn't this board ever in an uproar criticizing him, or even Clark who doesn't support withdrawal either. Does everything they've said since their verbal gymnastics over the IWR not matter; as long as they preface it with "I didn't vote for the war"? Is that really how simple-minded you are?

[FrenchieCat]

85. Kerry the truthteller....Wes Clark the Liar.....How convenient!

But I'm not surprised. Kerry's excuse for voting YES on the IWR should be because he listened to Wes Clark, the liar? WTF?

Odd, but the late Sen. Paul Wellstone spoke of why he DIDN'T vote for the IWR, and one of the reasons he gave was based on what Wes Clark had said during his testimony. In fact, Wellstone quoted Clark in his own speech on the Senate Floor.

I encourage you to read all of Wellstone's Senate speech on his NO vote on the IWR and take a look at what untortured, straight forward and honest leadership reads like.

"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

Wellstone says he doesn't know how Minnesotans will react to his decision to vote against the resolution. But he says he could not in good conscience vote any other way.

"Do I think about this decision in terms of how it effects the election? Of course. But ultimately, what I have to do is make this decision in the most honest way I can, about what I think is best, and that's what I've done," Wellstone said.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200210/03_zdechlikm_wellstoneiraq/

John Kerry's decision to vote as he did was made by John Kerry. If he is the leader many proclaim, then stop coming up with excuses that he listened to other people who were lying, etc., etc....

The problem for John Kerry is that there were too many other Senators who didn't come to the same conclusion as John Kerry did, when it was time to cast their votes.....so it doesn't matter how folks want to rationalize John Kerry's vote now...the bottomline is a non disputable fact--that it was his vote, right or wrong.

Clark's position on withdrawal is the one that he gave along with all congressional Dems (including John Kerry who was present at that announcement as he was seen in the last row--maybe not that happy, but he was still there).

That is the day that The congressional Dems presented their unity Iraq agenda, which says that 2006 would be the year of transition when Troops would have to be redeployed. This was the platform that Dems had united on (including Murtha) in order to get through the 2006 congressional elections with an unassailable Iraq position (in particular for those Dems running in the Red districts where the house seats we want to flip are located)...because the Dems in unity understood that the priority must be to win congressional elections and to have an answer to this " Democrats have no plan...they are all over the place" criticism we so often hear the pundits and GOP operative opine with. The position was specific enough as to differ with the Administration without putting Dems on the defensive in areas where that might be an issue.

That is also the day that many in the Kerry forum were wondering why John Kerry had been left out of the leadership on this announcement, and weren't too happy about it. Guess they got their answer quickly....as John Kerry chose to make "his" announcement a few days later on "his" very own plan....

However, in reading Kerry's "Plan", apart from the May 15th date leverage clause it is very similar to the United Dem's agenda. So when May 15th passes and if there is no Unity Government, then Kerry's plan is the same as the plan that he decided to upstage.....

I personally view this Kerry plan as nothing more than a Kerry political chess move in order to remain relevant as a "leader", 2006 elections strategy be damned.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/27/4430/2006-04-07.asp?wid=27&nid=4430

PS- I had not expressed this opinion previously because winning congress is more important to me than criticizing John Kerry and his motives (cause he has the right to do what he wants to do, just like other pols).....but you have compeled me to give my opinion on Kerry's new "plan".....cause Wes Clark was called a liar in your post here (his name wasn't mentioned anywhere in this thread before this comment) for no apparent reason other than to justify John Kerry's own actions. Now that's what was really sad!)

[sandnsea]

86. Wellstone???

Where'd that come from? He made whatever decision he wanted, based on what he thought was best, just like Kerry and everybody else did. They made their decisions based on TESTIMONY.

I merely said Kerry would have been better off citing Clark's testimony rather than Powell's, if scoring political points were his goal. Citing Clark's testimony about Saddam's WMD and his support of threatening military force would have been much smarter. He didn't, obviously because scoring political points isn't the point.

Kerry blasted Bush's go-it-alone bullying foreign policy too, so your Wellstone quote doesn't mean much.

What does mean something is Kerry HAS taken responsibility for his vote and his words, while Clark is still hiding behind MARY and oh my goodness, what was it he was supposed to say about whether he would have voted for the IWR. Point being, Kerry continues to get bashed even though he has consistently put forward plans to end this war; while Clark, particularly, continues to support troops in Iraq for the long haul. But ending the war isn't as important as waving the magic wand and saying, "I didn't vote for the war", which gives too many a pass on everything they really said at the time and have said since. It IS just pathetic.

[FrenchieCat]

87. You are wrong....and it is too bad that you have decided to attack

Wes Clark in order to justify John Kerry's vote, which was the issue of the OP.

Clark and Kerry's Iraq plans have been pretty much identical until Kerry new "plan" came out which adds a May 15th caveat deadline...one that he cannot enforce or control.

John Kerry was the Dem nominee. Wes Clark supported John Kerry....as did his supporters.

Your name calling of Wes Clark now is what is pathetic.

[sandnsea]

88. I'm referring to a blog post

And I was really only using Clark as an example to make a point about Kerry's current comments in a blog post, not to justify anything about the vote.

My only comments about the vote have to do with those who were supposedly "against the war from the start", but are now supporting people who aren't for ending the war at all. Yet they continue their partisan bashing against someone who has consistently laid out plans to withdraw troops and end the war, which is what they said they wanted 3 years ago. It's stunningly inconsistent.

And the election is over. People did whatever they did during the election because they chose to. Case closed.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Using Clark as an "example"? Case Closed?

you said...."Wes Clark is flat out lying about what he said at the time. Funny how the liars from all sides have consistently taken less heat on Iraq than the ones who tried to do the right thing and put their integrity on the line to do it.
Clark has put his integrity on the line more than once......which is why he is listed on John O'Neil's (not the swiftboater) Wall of Heroes. In fact, Clark put any pride he might have had in his pocket and did what he could do to support John Kerry. How dare you speak as though Kerry has integrity that he put on the line, and Clark doesn't! You need to check yourself!

Then you say....."Kerry HAS taken responsibility for his vote and his words, while Clark is still hiding behind MARY and oh my goodness, what was it he was supposed to say about whether he would have voted for the IWR."
Kerry obviously still hasn't taken responsibility for his vote, if you still have to come up with a rational as to why even though his vote was wrong, it was still right!

you added for good measure...." Kerry continues to get bashed even though he has consistently put forward plans to end this war; while Clark, particularly, continues to support troops in Iraq for the long haul."
(this is a bunch of shit)....as Kerry and Clark have held similar positions for a long time and have BOTH put out many plans--until the Kerry "splash" of a week ago, Kerry's position on Iraq was undisguishable to Clark's....and actually more or less still is.

and then you say...."I was only using Wes Clark as an example"

Then excuse yourself with "case closed"? How noble of you! :sarcasm:

I'll tell you what I see.....I see someone who bashes who they want when they desire (that would be you), and then acts like it's not OK for others to Bash John Kerry, cause he's John Kerry, and that's who you support. That's hypocracy....and nothing more.

In the future, make your case for John Kerry...just try to keep from having to drag other good Dems into the mud in order to achieve your goal. If John Kerry is all that you say he is, that tactic should not even be an option. I don't even think that John Kerry, your leader, would like what you are doing.....cause it doesn't make him look the better for it.

[sandnsea]

91. I never said Clark was an excuse for the vote

That's what you said I said. I didn't say that. I said he COULD HAVE used Clark's testimony, that it would have been smarter politically considering Colin Powell's history. He didn't because he wasn't after political points. That's what I said. You twisted that into using Clark to justify his vote, which I never did.

As for the rest, yeah, I think Clark is a liar on his testimony to Congress and it's not the first time I've said it. John Kerry doesn't tell me what to say or think. I know what Clark's testified to and I know he supported a threat of force because he believed Saddam had WMD. I don't care how many times he and his supporters try to deny it. It's right there in the testimony, in black and white. He hasn't taken responsibility for those words and they most certainly had influence on people who had to decide what to do with Saddam. Those are facts.

On Iraq, now, Clark has yet to put ending the war as his priority; rather, his plans continues to focus on "affecting the outcome" and even deploying more troops to Iraq. Bringing troops home has never been the primary focus of his Iraq strategy, as it always has been with Kerry.

That's not to say that I wouldn't rather have Clark leading on Iraq than Bush, or most anybody else. But his view has not included a reduction in troops as a means of taking the steam out of the insurgency, as Kerry has advocated for a long time now. They have very different views on Iraq, even more so with Kerry's recent deadline. So it IS stunningly inconsistent for people who "opposed the war from the start" to ignore an opportunity to end the war and continue to toss around "voted for the war" as an excuse for their position.

[CarolNYC]

93. Both Senators Wellstone and Kennedy

referenced Wes Clark's testimony in explaining their decisions to vote agaisnt the IWR...so at least someone was paying close enough attention to actually hear what he was saying...Or maybe they're just liars too...or "Clark sucking idiots". ;)

[dogday]

97. Add Feingold to that list

he did not vote for it either. But as one poster put it, what does it matter now? Well some would argue almost 3,000 american lives.. That matters now....

[CarolNYC]

99. dogday....

Russ will always have my undying gratitude for his votes on both the IWR and the Patriot Act....

[dogday]

100. You have to admire his choices nt

[sandnsea]

101. Them too

How in the world do they get away with making statements like these without anybody calling them to account for not "knowing" what everybody at DU "knew". Do you not think statements like these are going to come back to haunt Russ Feingold if he runs for President? He believed all this but voted to do nothing?? None of these people got it right on Iraq and their words fueled the public debate at the time too. To pretend they had some keen wisdom that they clearly didn't have is bullshit.

"And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein."

[FrenchieCat]

102. Could provide a link on these quotes?

Thanks!

[dogday]

103. I too would like some reference for this please

Russ did not vote for the IWR and this statement contradicts how he voted.. I would like to see the entire reference on this please???

[sandnsea]

104. Geesh

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/02/10/2002A10531.html

What, do you think I made it up?

[dogday]

105. No just took it out of context

if you go on to read the entire article, he plainly states

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing W.M.D. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the W.M.D. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to W.M.D.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?


Like most he thought Iraq posed a threat, but not to the extent that we grant war powers...

[FrenchieCat]

127. As I suspected.....

Interesting how things are becoming sooooo twisted! And it ain't even primary season! :crazy:

[sandnsea]

134. Not out of conext, taken in its entirety

Big difference. Feingold and Kennedy and others were as wrong about Iraq and WMD as the rest of the world. Where's their apologies??

And, if they were so sure Iraq had WMD and inspectors had to return, exactly where was their plan to get those inspectors into Iraq?

I know Clark's plan. A threat of force. Which he continues to deny he said.

And don't even pretend with the primary season garbage. Clark supporters have been in primary season mode since Nov 3.

[FrenchieCat]

139. You have made your bed.....

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002,
in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force
...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.
(See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

Sept. 26, 2002
CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.

I think you know with the value of hindsight what you realize is that there are many, you know, ifs, would-haves, and buts in situations like this. The question before the United States of America is whether we think our intelligence system is so faulty and our lack of information so gross that we would feel the need to rush to a military solution before we've taken the time to adequately build up the diplomatic and full military support capabilities that will assure we get a more favorable outcome. And, you know, it's a question of where the weight of the evidence is.

I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm
---------
I especially liked this part, same testimony 9/26/02:

Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=2036557

09-02-03
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: U.S. WAR IN IRAQ IS STRATEGIC BLUNDER
Wesley K. Clark was Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (NATO) and ran the U.S.-led war in Kosovo, ... spoke on Sept. 2 with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.

10/10/02: Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq
www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html

University of Massachusetts at Boston
Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)
By Michael McPhee

Wesley K. Clark, retired general of the US Army, was the distinguished guest of the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs on October 10. Over seventy-five people came to hear the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe discuss his reflections on the US policy towards Iraq.

Edmund Beard, director of the McCormack Institute, introduced Clark and gave an account of the general’s impressive military career, which includes command at every level from company to division. Clark is both a soldier and scholar, graduating first in his 1966 class of the United States Military Academy at West Point and holding a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Clark, who was the NATO commander in charge of the effort to stop the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, spoke of his experiences in Bosnia, where he learned first-hand about the chaos of unleashed ethnic hatreds. It is exactly this chaos that has led Clark to raise a voice of concern over possible conflict with Iraq. Clark believes that a military war with Iraq could be over in as little as two weeks. He is concerned with the lack of a long-range plan for the chaos that would ensue among the Kurds, Shiites, and those factions loyal to Saddam Hussein, which Clark believes would play out on a much larger scale than what took place in Bosnia.

Clark spoke of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, seeing it as a time when the U.S. lost its adversaries and failed in its foreign policy strategy. At that time there were two groups in Washington debating the role of the military; one group saw the military merely as the fighter and winner of wars; another group, led by Madeleine Albright, saw the military as a useful tool in aiding third world countries.

In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration’s preemption policy and striking out.

Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.

[sandnsea]

147. It's called CHERRY-PICKING

Click any link and you get the TOTALITY of Clark's remarks. You get HIS recommendation to threaten force and go to war if necessary. That was the exact purpose of the IWR, which is exactly what Clark recommended in his testimony.

From the VERY FIRST LINK you posted:

"Ultimately, he must be held to his pledge to give up weapons of mass destruction, by force if necessary. First, we should build international pressure against him. We need to simultaneously offer more tightly focused and, therefore, more effective sanctions against Iraq while increasing our efforts to open the country to humanitarian and human-rights efforts. We need to press for a U.N. resolution demanding no-holds-barred inspections, which the White House is considering. At worst, engaging the U.N. would build international support for action against Iraq; at best, intrusive inspections might slow down Saddam's weapons programs, giving us more time. Finally, we should establish "red lines" Saddam cannot cross - such as refusing to accept these inspections - that would mobilize international support for action against him."

[FrenchieCat]

151. So are you saying that General Clark was not supposed to

establish steps to deal with Saddam at all?

"At worst, engaging the U.N. would build international support for action against Iraq;

You are being totally disingenious....and if John Kerry understood things the way that you do....then, John Kerry should not even be sorry for his vote....

John Kerry voted to give Bush a "BLANK CHECK"....which is not something Wes Clark ever recommended!

[sandnsea]

152. Glad you get it

Clark and Kerry supported the EXACT SAME STEPS in dealing with Iraq. If he said it once, he said it 50,000 times, war as a last resort. The process is what he voted for, he said again yesterday that he did not vote for Bush to go to war. He voted for the process. He regrets his vote because he shouldn't have trusted Bush, not because the process was wrong.

[sandnsea]

129. Take things in totality???

Gee, what a frickin' novel concept. You mean a vote isn't the end all be all to a person's views? You mean when you say inspectors should go into a country where you also say they'e been manipulated in the past, you ought to have SOMETHING to back that up?? You mean that everybody in the Senate was "duped"?? You mean when DUers say they "knew", they're saying they also "knew" better than Feingold, Kennedy and Clark????

Is that what you're saying?

[dogday]

145. Where have I posted anything like that?

I said you took a portion of Feingold's speech and put it out there like that is all there was, and it was not... He asked the questions that needed to be asked before this war started and he did not like the answers, so he voted against the war... How is his voting against the war doing anything or putting anyone else down??? I have not posted a negative post about Kerry or any other Dem....

[sandnsea]

148. You haven't, which is my point

You cherry-pick. You act as if their responsibility begins and ends with a vote. It doesn't. Their words matter. Their plans and policies matter. The way they would govern matters. Pretending that a vote is not the same as crafting and implementing a national security strategy. At least Clark did that and continues to do that. Feingold rationalized a vote, offered no alternatives, and walked away. Real courage. Right.

[dogday]

153. Feingold walked away lol--- yes and he walked away

from the patriot act, and from holding the President accountable ... Don't tell me he walked away.. I don't base my support on the basis of one vote. There are many things that he does that impresses me.. I am not cherry picking anything however you insult other's choices like dirt and I don't think that is the way to influence anyone for your candidate.....

On edit: it is their actions that speak louder than their words......

[sandnsea]

154. Show me

Listen, I like Feingold. I'd never go into a Feingold thread on any of his votes or opinions and say anything negative about him. So while you're trashing me about being insulting, remember you're the one that did the insulting first.

And tell me, what was Feingold's plan to get the inspectors he says were needed into Iraq? What was his plan to increase surveillance of suspected terrorists? What's his plan to actually get a censure hearing? Actions speak louder than words?? Yeah. Tell me the actions.

[dogday]

155. Show me where I insulted anyone

This is not a good thread about Kerry, I hate to break that news to you... I stated my opinion because this was about the IWR.. That is why Feingold came into play... Show me the post where I insulted anyone.... The more I say Feingold did not vote for the IWR, the more angry you and another poster get... By saying that, what have I done to anyone else?????

[sandnsea]

164. Okay

"you insult other's choices like dirt"

I didn't insult anybody's choice. To say that I did, is insulting.

I answered a post that criticized Colin Powell and said Kerry could have just as easily used Wes Clark as an example of someone he listened to because Wes Clark said Saddam was a threat and advocated the threat of force too. Even though he lies and pretends he didn't say it now. Facts, not criticizing anybody's choice.

Others brought in the votes of other Senators too, not me. So to say I did all of this is insulting, I didn't. Kerry bashers did, just like they always do.

[dogday]

168. I said where I insulted other politicians as you accused

you change the subject every other post, your last post said I was insulting other politicians... Now you say I insulted you after everything you have said and done... Ridiculous....

[sandnsea]

173. No you did not

You never said "insulted other politicians". Good grief. You jump into the middle of a thread, you make assumptions, you bash Kerry, you insult me, and then you say it's all my fault. That's what's ridiculous.

[dogday]

174. See I never bashed Kerry, there you go again

it is amazing, again show me where... I did not insult you, I told you, that you were talking about other people's candidates like they were dirt and if you check back you will see... Don't try to change the subject, it doesn't work with me....

[sandnsea]

176. I think Clark lied

I have every right to say that and it isn't treating anybody's candidate like dirt. It certainly isn't anywhere near the innuendo in your comment about "dead soldiers and their families". YOU are the one who keeps changing the subject. I keep trying to focus on what politicians say and do, ALL of what they say and do.

[dogday]

181. I talk about dead soldiers and their families because

I have a Son in this war and I take it personally so excuse me if I find this all a little too late... I don't have any problems with Kerry, this was a mean thread on him, I didn't start it and I was certainly not the only one who talked about the lives and deaths of our soldiers...

Thank goodness you are so informed.....

[sandnsea]

182. Then drop it

If you don't have any problems with Kerry and this was a mean thread on him...

[dogday]

212. You have fed the fires of this post and

you have only yourself to blame for it.. I only posted that Russ originally did not vote for the IWR and you came in on me and said all this stuff.. When you say drop it, I think it would be good advice for you to heed your own words...

[FrenchieCat]

187. you keep making shit up......

You think Clark lied......but he didn't. So your thinking is wrong.

[CarolNYC]

183. Thanks for posting the rest of that....

Interesting how the poster didn't include the link to the full statement in the original post.....

I have no idea if General Clark's testimony influenced Russ' vote at all because I've not heard him speak to that....And I'm sure that both Senators Kennedy and Wellstone were also influenced by things other than Clark's testimony....And I'm sure if you were paying close attention to only certain pieces of Clark's testimony, you could even come up with some kind of bogus argument that Clark was advocating for the invasion...Heck, Drudge did it during the primaries and Lieberman jumped right on it too, didn't he?

What I do know, what's out there for all to see, is that both Senators Kennedy and Wellstone specifically brought up General Clark's testimony when explaining their votes against the IWR. That's a fact that can't be changed...General Clark's testimony figured into both men's explanations for their decision to vote AGAINST the IWR....And apparently that drives at least one person just about around the bend...to the point where they have to label Feingold and Wellstone and Kennedy idiotic liars....

Hey, if Feingold and Kennedy and Wellstone and Clark are (were, in Senator Wellstone's case) a bunch of idiot liars, give me a government filled with idiotic liars...I can certainly think of worse company to be in than those four...

dogday, I hope your son stays well...and I'm sorry you got jumped on like that further downthread....

[dogday]

213. Thank you, I appreciate the fact that you are

aware of my Son's service to this country... I only wish others understood what it means to me.... When someone jumps on me like that, I know I have won the arguement... I always try to post with a modicum of respect toward everyone.. Yes that was uncalled for was it not???

[CarolNYC]

214. uncalled for....

No doubt that was uncalled for....I felt the sting of those remarks and they weren't even directed at me. Can't figure why you were singled out, either. I thought you were respectful even when being jumped on....

Oh well, here's hoping your son stays safe and returns quickly home.

[Adelante]

109. You made it up that Wes Clark is a liar.

I certainly will have to look more closely before taking your word in the future, because I know you are absolutely fucking wrong here, or lying.

[sandnsea]

130. You tell me

Has he ever admitted that he was dead wrong about Iraq and WMD? Has he ever admitted that he advised a threat of force? Has he ever admitted that it's only logical that those who listened to that advise would vote for the IWR? Has he ever taken any responsibility for the entirety of his testimony?

I've never heard it.

[FrenchieCat]

140. You won't hear it, cause it didn't happen.....

Those that listened to him didn't vote for the IWR based on his words......

[sandnsea]

144. Are you kidding me?

You're going to tell me that he didn't advocate a threat of force? You're telling me that he didn't say Saddam was a threat and had WMD? Seriously?

[FrenchieCat]

149. You are kidding yourself.....that's what.....

Of course, Wes Clark never takes "the threat" of force off the table in dealing with any would be possible hypothetical conflict.

However, he didn't "advocated" force, as much as enumerating so many things one would do prior to "using" force, till it wasn't even funny.

What part of only use "force as a last, last resort" don't you understand?

It would be foolish for any American who understands the world to just say....OK, we will never entertain using force, nor we'll we ever threaten it's use....but no, Wes Clark never "advocate" the use of force in Iraq.

[sandnsea]

150. See #147, you're wrong

When Kerry leaves the hypothetical threat of force on the table, he clearly states it's because you never remove the threat of force.

That is not what Clark did. The threat of force was a very real part of his recommendations, he said it repeatedly.

Facts. In black and white.

[FrenchieCat]

157. I have to stop now....because I don't want to look any worse

than you already do.

Kerry leaves the hypothetical threat of force on the table....WTF is that supposed to mean???

Here's Kerry......talking about USING force...not this hypothetical bullcrap you are refering to.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
JOHN KERRY'S FLOOR SPEECH TO THE SENATE 10/09/02

[sandnsea]

160. EXACTLY what Clark said

I swear I don't see how you can put it in print and deny it. Truly stunning.

[FrenchieCat]

167. Here is what Kerry said.....

Kerry here...talking about the resolution he voted YES on!

"The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to THE USE OF FORCE only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. --John Kerry

So I guess USING FORCE (NOT JUST THE THREAT OF FORCE) in Iraq was very clear to John Kerry in that it was in the Resolution...and he felt as long as it was just USE OF FORCE in Iraq....that was acceptable.

[sandnsea]

172. See #171 n/t

[Adelante]

156. You're saying it - you prove it

Prove he lied, go ahead.

[sandnsea]

161. He said those things

He now says that he never advocated military force. That's what all the Clark supporters say.

What he said then and what he says now don't match. He did advocate military force.

When he denies it, he's lying.

Unless he's admitted he was wrong about the WMD and that there was no reason to advocate force at all. I haven't heard that. If you have, let me know.

[Adelante]

162. Don't tell me to let you know

You're the one making the charges. Back them up. Let me know when you can.

[sandnsea]

165. I can't prove a negative

If he didn't admit that he's been lying about advocating a threat of force and that he said Saddam was a threat, then I can't hardly prove he didn't admit it. Because he didn't admit it. If you can prove he's admitted he was wrong, show me.

[FrenchieCat]

180. Silly!.....

Clark did say that Saddam was a threat.....just not a threat that was imminent or that we needed to deal with right at that moment.

Where's the lie in that?

Clark did reserve the use of the Threat of Force.....he just never advocated it..nor did he advocate the USE OF FORCE.

There is nothing for Clark to admit to. he wasn't wrong....he was right! That's the beauty of it all. Clark was very right in mostly everything he said about Iraq.

Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/01/23/gillespie/index.html

[Adelante]

186. When did he LIE?

Precisely.

[sandnsea]

192. Here

Here are remarks posted by Frenchie:

"Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations."


Clark won't admit that this is NOT the extent of what he said to Congress. He did not just call for a resolution to the UN. He did call for acting unilaterally as well. He won't admit that he laid out a plan that was based on threat of force, or that he believed Saddam had WMD. He denies that he even said these things. You call it what you want, I call it a lie.

Here's what he actually said:

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations."

This is EXACTLY what the IWR did. It did not authorize immediate force in October 2002, rather it laid out an intent that Bush would use force if ALL peaceful means failed to resolve the problem of weapons of mass destruction.

[FrenchieCat]

163. Clark said that war should be fought at the last, last resort....

That's what he said then...and that's what he says now.

He never advocated the use of military force in Iraq!

You are lying!

ad·vo·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-kt)
tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. See Synonyms at support.
n. (-kt, -kt)
One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights.
One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses.

Main Entry: 2ad·vo·cate
Pronunciation: 'ad-v&-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: -cat·ed; -cat·ing
transitive verb : to argue in favor of intransitive verb : to act as an advocate <shall advocate for minority business —V. M. Rivera>
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


advocate
n 1: a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea 2: a lawyer who pleads cases in court v 1: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day" 2: speak, plead, or argue in favour of; "The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house"

[sandnsea]

166. I copied his words from YOUR link

"he must be held to his pledge to give up weapons of mass destruction, by force if necessary"

Why do you deny this? He advocated the threat of force to get those inspectors into Iraq. That's what the IWR was all about. He and Kerry had THE EXACT SAME PLAN to handle Iraq.

If Clark doesn't owe any apologies, then neither does Kerry.

[FrenchieCat]

170. you are really......

Let me stop myself....

Clark: "There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."

Kerry: "The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief.

[sandnsea]

171. Cherry-picking, again

Your comments are in response to his opposition to Bush's original resolution, as you know since you cherry-picked it out of his floor statement.

Then, you conveniently leave out the rest of what he said, because it's EXACTLY WHAT CLARK SAID.

"And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first..

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

He goes on to say he DOES NOT support unilateral war

"I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."

Note the numerous IF's in his statement, he WAS NOT voting for war.

[FrenchieCat]

177. As much as Kerry talks, I cannot post the whole damn thing that he said...

cause DU rules doesn't allow it. But the Kerry quote here is in reference to the "revised" resolution...and is the one that he did vote for......while others didn't.

I've never said that John Kerry would not have preferred another resolutions to have passed, one that didn't give Bush the Authority....but he does say that as long as it is clear that Bush is only to USE FORCE in Iraq....and not in the entire Persian Gulf region, he felt that he could vote for the that Resolution.

Here is Kerry speaking (you can call it cherry picking; I call it relevant to the specific resolution that ended up passing with his vote

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region.
--John Kerry
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

You continue to insist that John Kerry voted for "the process"....and I understand that...however, what did the "process" involve?

Answer: Granting the authority to the President to the USE OF FORCE only in respect to Iraq? (using Kerry's words, not mine).

So you see, you are correct; John Kerry voted for a process....unfortunately, included in that Process was Bush's right to USE FORCE. So John Kerry did vote to authorize the "USE of FORCE" ......and I'm saying that he did understand what he was "authorizing" with his "YEA" vote....as he so clearly stated above.

You said that Clark "Advocated" for the Use of force.....but we have yet to get any source of this. Did Clark "advocate" the threat of the use of Force, or the Use of Force? Actually Clark "advocated" neither, because Clark was not an "Advocate" for this war. Sure, John Kerry and Wes Clark were on the same page on a lot of things on this......and I certainly DO NOT believe that John Kerry was an "Advocate" for this war either....but John Kerry did clearly undestand what he was voting for; and that was to give the President the Authority to USE FORCE against Iraq.

You can think that Wes Clark would have voted for this particular resolution, but he said that he woudn't have voted for it....and that he would have voted for the Resolution that would have made Bush come back to congress for a 2nd vote (Levin Resolution)....

You can't just decide what Clark would have done IF.....just because it would help John Kerry's stance.

Did John Kerry wish that other Resolutions would had passed that didn't give this authority? Most likely. But you see, that didn't stop John Kerry from voting for what he didn't prefer. Now why was that? Why didn't John Kerry vote NO, if the Resolution that was passing was not to his liking? Can you answer me that?

[sandnsea]

178. COMPLETE distortion

I told you what your comment was in reference to, I told you what he was voting for. I posted Clark's words that are exactly the same as Kerry's. Twist yourself into a pretzel for all I care, it doesn't change the plain facts.

And as to your last question, if you'd read your presidential candidate's floor statement at any point in the last 3 years, you'd know what he said about Biden-Lugar. Why didn't you ever bother? How the hell could you have campaigned for him the way you said you did if you didn't even know his views on the war and the vote? Can you answer me that?

[FrenchieCat]

184. Your answer......

The only amendment or resolution that mentioned the UN was the Levin amendment.

Wes Clark was actually mentioned by name by Levin as he proposed his Resolution on the floor of the Senate--
Here is what Sen. Levin said when he proposed his Resolution....
General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

Video of Clark talking about his supporting the Levin Resolution. Howard Dean was the one that supported the Biden/Lugar Resolution......
http://www.ammrx.com/~ice/vidclips/Clark_on_Swett.rm

Also this....

Clark and Iraq war resolution
Which Iraq war resolution in the Senate did Clark say he supported? There were five that were proposed: the one that passed 75-25, proposed by Lieberman; the Byrd amendment that would provide a termination date for the use of force authorization, which failed 31-66; the second Byrd amendment that would limit Bush's authority to Iraq (the Lieberman version mentions a number of terrorist organizations that force was also authorized against), which failed 14-86; the Levin amendment that would limit the authority to destroying or removing WMDs and require a new UN Security Council resolution, which failed 24-75; and the Durbin amendment that would limit the authority to any imminent threat posed by Iraqi WMDs not a continuing threat, which failed 30-70.

Here's what Clark had to say about which resolution he supported:
"Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations. But I warned against giving him a blank check. I would never have supported the resolution as it ultimately emerged.

Levin's speech cited the testimony of Clark, along with Generals Shalikashvili and Hoar in favor of UNSC resolutions.
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/clark_and_iraq_war_resolution.php

BY THE WAY....LEVIN VOTED NO!

[sandnsea]

185. And there you have it

Clark won't admit that he supported a resolution with the threat of force. You call it what you want, I call it a lie. Here's what he actually said:

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations."

This is EXACTLY what the IWR did. It did not authorize immediate force in October 2002, rather it laid out an intent that Bush would use force if ALL peaceful means failed to resolve the problem of weapons of mass destruction.

[FrenchieCat]

188. Not....this isn't it......

Clark did not advocate the USE OF FORCE......
He said bring it back after going to the U.N.......because IF other measures fail, then there would be ANOTHER RESOLUTION....BECAUSE AT THIS POINT THE RESOLUTION NEED NOT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE.

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations."

Clark supported the Levin amendment, the one that would have forced the president to come BACK to the congress AFTER going to the U.N. That's why he talks about " the more focused the resolution.....the greater its utility in the United Nations".....

Clark certainly wasn't recommending a blank fucking check....as this clearly shows...and he certainly wasn't "advocating" for the use of force.....!

So who lied? You?

What else have you got?

[sandnsea]

190. "agree on the intent to authorize the use of force"

Good lord, you just said it yourself. You are saying that when Clark testified to Congress, he advocated the use of force to get inspectors into Iraq because he thought Saddam had WMD. That was his plan. That's exactly what I said. Their words matter. He denies he said this. But he did because even you can see that he did.

It is not just about the vote. It's about the policies and plans leaders have. Clark's plan was a threat of force. He has never said he was wrong about WMD or that he was wrong to advocate that policy. He won't even admit his thinking contributed to the creation of the policy.

He advocated force. Like Kerry, he advocated an international coalition with the UN. Like Kerry, he advocated unilateral force only as a last resort.

They did not have different views on Iraq in 2002. Kerry doesn't owe any more of an apology for his position on Iraq than Clark does.

[FrenchieCat]

191. You know what...I think you're playing "dumb" now......

And I've noticed the caveat you put on Clark a while ago.
The Threat of Force vs. the Use of Force.

He said that we should demand Inspections backed by the threat of Force if need be.

Do you understand the difference>....or is there no different between when someone threatens to whoop your ass if you don't do what you tell them...and someone who hauls off and hits you upside the head just cause they can?

I think that enough folks have read enough here to know who's who, and what's what.

You obviously don't want to have a clue....cause your entire objective in this tortured thread is to drag Wes Clark into the same place where Kerry is (and remember, you brought up Wes Clark and called him a liar, which is the only reason I am even in this fucking thread).

Look, this is the place that John Kerry is in: He authorized the USE OF FUCKING FORCE...not the threat of it via his vote.

and Wes Clark not only didn't tell anyone to vote for the resolution that Kerry voted for....but he also testified (when he didn't have to) that there was time to act; that Saddam was not an imminent threat; That Saddam DID NOT have nuclear weapons; that AlQeada was what was important; that if we did anything, any action should be through the U.N. First, and then, IF ALL ELSE FAILS, COME BACK and get a resolution that AUTHORIZES THE USE OF FORCE as that should be the last avenue. period.

That ain't the same place. Sorry.

John Kerry is fine by me. You calling Wes Clark a liar, and then failing to prove it is not.....however!

[sandnsea]

196. Threat of force, threat of using force

You're the one playing dumb and using weasel words. I've posted Wes Clark's own words. He pretends he never advocated the use of force in any way, certainly never admits he advocated unilateral force. He never admits he was wrong about Saddam and WMD, he never admits his testimony influenced those who had to make that vote. None of it. Neither do his supporters. The words are right there on this page. His position on Iraq was quite clear. He lies when he pretends he didn't say these things, he just does.

[FrenchieCat]

195. Wes Clark didn't have a fucking plan on Iraq.....

He was asked to come and testify as to what was, in his opinion, the best method to deal with Saddam IF he had WMDs.

He advocated going to the fucking United Nations.....that's what he advocated. he certainly did feel that to get inspectors back in.....if need be, that using the threat of force could be effective.

Clark clearly stated that Saddam had no Nukes.....He stated that he might have some chemical weapons...as did everybody else and their mama!

He wasn't wrong to advocate that policy...because the inspectors were let back into Iraq without a single shot being taken or bomb dropped. Doh...

He didn't create Shit of a policy...cause he wasn't working in government at the time, and he certainly did not have Bush's ear. they had already made their plan....and Clark didn't hold any sway.

He did not "advocate" force. Hell, you don't even know what "advocate" means...obviously, although I posted several definitions just for you...none which described anything that Gen. Clark talked about.

Kerry GAVE Bush a blank check for whatever his reasons.

Wes Clark never advocated a blank check policy...so Clark didn't influence John Kerry to vote for the blank check.

That's the difference you don't want to see.

[sandnsea]

198. He didn't have a plan?!?!?

What the hell do you call all of that testimony???? It was the exact plan Democrats in Congress adopted for chrissake. He said the US should use force unilateraly if the UN didn't disarm Iraq, that's what he supported, that's what he advocated, that was his plan.

Unbelievable.

[FrenchieCat]

197. Too bad about all of the evidence that show something other than what you

want to see.....

"I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”--Perle
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blo...

You think Perle would have said this if Wes Clark was "advocating" for force in Iraq? Plu-eazzzzzzze!

Hell the neocons would have jumped so fast on Clark advocating anything but going to the United Nations...till it wouldn't have even been funny!

You think that Wellstone and Kennedy would have quoted Gen. Clark in their floor speeches stating they were voting "HELL NO" on the Resolution if Clark had been advocating the use of force all along? Why would they? How would that help out their rationale for voting "uh....HELL NO"?

You think that Sen. Levin, who did not vote for the IWR, would have said this about the importance of the United Nations...while introducing the Resolution that would force the President to come back to Congress before authorizing force?

"In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee on September 23rd, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili addressed the issue of acting pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force in the following fashion:

"I am convinced that such a resolution would, in fact, be a powerful tool, and I say that for a number of reasons. "First of all, we need to impress upon Saddam Hussein that he's not just facing the United States, but that he's facing the will of the majority of the world. We must also ensure that we have made it possible for as many of our friends and allies to join us. Some of them privately tell us they would do so, but that it's difficult for political, internal reasons, whatever, very difficult to do so without the United Nations having spoken on the issue. Some of them believe deeply that you should go to war only ��less you're directly attacked - that you should go to war only with the sanction of the United Nations. Others just have that in their culture.

"Finally, I think it's important from a security point of view, because every time we undermine the credibility of the United Nations, we are probably hurting ourselves more than anyone else. We are a global Nation with global interests. And undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world. . ."

General Shalikashvili ended by stating that "So I see nothing but value added for the United States to try our very best to get that kind of a resolution."

General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."

Those two former senior commanders were concerned, of course, not only with the diplomatic and political aspects of working through the United Nations, but also with the practical impact that not going through the United Nations would have on the actual conduct of a war. "
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

You are wrong....and as much as you twist all that you do, you still come up short.

[sandnsea]

199. Quoting Perle, rotlfmao

Yeah, the ones who would say ANYTHING to go to war. The ones who Clark argued with when they tried to paint him as a pansy who cowered at war. The ones who were trashing anybody who had a sensible plan, like Clark had. That's who you bring to the table. A slandering lying neocon.

:rofl:

This is ridiculous. His words are there in black and white. Ignore them if you want.

[FrenchieCat]

202. Why don't you just keep laughing

at Levin, Kennedy, Wellstone, Graham, Boxer....and everyone else that voted "HELL NO" on the IWR while you're at it? While you hold Kerry up as the King of Integrity and the leader of all that there is!

I mean, what is ridiculous is how you are coming out looking out of all of this....that's what's ridiculous.....plus the fact that you instigate it doesn't escape some of us.

I suspect that other Kerry supporters out there are probably wondering why you even brought up Clark's name and called him a liar. They probably wished you'd have stopped by now...although it's already too late.

So you should just keep on laughing....while I just shrug my shoulders in disgust and try to figure out what Wes Clark had to do with Kerry's vote.

[sandnsea]

204. They don't lie about what they said

They don't pretend that they didn't think Saddam had WMD. They also didn't say we should threaten unilateral war. That's the key difference.

I've said a hundred times that I don't care what other people think about me. I can't stand lies and I don't care where they come from. I am fed up with people pretending that some Democrats were warmongers supporting immediate invasion and others "knew" all and should consequently be enshrined forever. It's bullshit, plain and simple. I'm sick of it. You can't stand around and say things like "war in 60 days", "we must have inspections", and "unilateral force", and then pretend you had nothing to do with war when it comes.

[FrenchieCat]

206. I can't stand lies and I don't care where they come from.

Check yourself....cause that is where "they" are eminating from.....

Saying that Saddam was a threat was said by everyone. The type of threat is what is at issue. Was it imminent? Some thought yes, and others thought no. Wes Clark didn't think so.

Not anyone felt that if the United Nations said NO...then that was the best that we could do, including John Kerry.

The bottomline is that even those who thought Saddam was a threat, didn't vote for the IWR. And many Democrats have said that if and whenever there is an iminent threat, we must act unilaterally if totally necessary, as a last resort. Anyone that would say otherwise, would be a fool.

That's really not the issue here, and you actually know it. At this point, you have become desperate, and it shows.

What Good Dems have said about Saddam.

I don't know if I have the time to find what they each have said about Unilateral war as a last resort. I'll later on!


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism?

There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source


GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq.

But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

[sandnsea]

208. And they were all wrong, all "duped"

So where's their apologies?

All of DU "knew" Iraq didn't have any WMD, so why were all these people saying we should start a unilateral war, if necessary? Why don't they have to say they were wrong and should never show their faces in public again.

And do any of them deny they said these things the way Clark has? Not that I've heard.

[FrenchieCat]

209. Nope....

They were not all duped. Most of the ones I quoted in a prior post actually voted "HELL NO" on the Resolution....the only one I listed that voted Yes...I think was John Kerry. In fact, I think that in that list of quoted politicians, John Kerry might have been the only one who thought that Saddam was such an imminent threat that he needed to "trust" Bush to do what was required...

Let's see, I quoted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Robert Graham, Edward Kennedy, Carl levin, Paul Wellstone, Al Gore (who would have voted NO, I believe) and Howard Dean all saying that Saddam was a threat, and each understand that the United States always reserves the right to use Force when all else has failed and there is an imminent threat.

Yet, holding those two thoughts did not equal to voting YES on the IWR.
So, there were many who, like Clark, said that Saddam was a threat......
and most of our senators, if not all of them, believe that the United States
always reserves the right to use Force and a unilateral response, if imminently threatened...
and diplomacy fails.

So can I ask you...
why did the Senators that I quoted
has having said Saddam was a threat
and are listed below;
Why did they VOTE NO on the IRW?

Do you know why?

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[sandnsea]

210. Gore didn't vote, and you quoted Hillary for chrissake

And my entire point is that responsibility goes further than a vote. People's beliefs are just as important, if not more important, than their vote. Words matter. Actions matter. What people do AFTER a vote, matters.

I'd take Clark and his well thought out position on Iraq over Kucinich's blather about getting inspectors into Iraq with no plan to do it, any day of the week. The vote isn't the end all be all to a person's vision and leadership. That was my point from the very beginning.

[LittleClarkie]

205. What was the Biden Lugar?

I know Kerry preferred that one over the one that ended up coming down the pike.

I dunno though. I always think of Clark and Kerry as being very close to each other in their opinions. They compliment each other pretty well actually.

I wonder what he thinks about Kerry's Withdrawl plan.

[sandnsea]

211. They were, that's my point

Identical in 2002 really. So where's the outcry for Clark to apologize, because if Kerry was wrong, so was Clark. And a whole bunch of other people.

Leadership is about more than a vote.

[FrenchieCat]

126. No....I just wanted to read it in total......Is that OK with You?

Edited to say "thank you!"

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. It's a FOUR YEAR OLD VOTE. Get OVER it, already.

Who fucking cares? We're in Iraq. Now. We were going regardless of whether the entire Democratic coalition in the Senate had joined hands and sung Kumbayah - because BUSH - yes, BUSH, remember him? The man responsible for invading Iraq? - was determined to invade, come hell or high water.

John Kerry is calling for a withdrawal of all troops. Do you support that? You know, since you care so passionately about the war and all?

People who are stuck in 2002 and bitch about things they can't change don't impress me. People who live in the present who are trying to find solutions instead of sitting and whining about what might have been DO impress me. John Kerry is the latter. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. John Kerry is leading on this issue. So either follow him, propose your own plan and stop bitching about something that happened 4 years ago, or get out of everyone else's way.

[dogday]

95. Tell that to the dead soldiers and their families nt

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

117. I was not blaming Democrats for anything, I stated I support

Feingold, remember he is a Democrat as well.. I never said a bad thing against anyone.. I said I would support Feingold because of his intial vote yes, but that has nothing to do with any other Democrat... These are the reason I support Feingold

*Voted against the Patriot Act to protect our civil liberties
*Returns his pay raise to the Treasury every year
*Votes against unfair trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, etc...)
*Demands the citizens of the US have the same quality healthcare as he does
*Has held open listening sessions in every county in Wisconsin for 12 years
*He has a broad appeal and has received many votes from both parties
*He has one of the best environmental records in the Senate
*Strong commitment to our Veterans with a record to prove it
*Works to cut wasteful spending and has received many endorsements to show it
*He supports a woman's right to choose
*He demands fairness in campaigning and fights to block 'corporate bribes'
*He has consistently worked to end the death penalty
*Works to helps Police Departments and was honored by the Nation Association of Police Organizations as the Senator of the year.
*He opposed No Child Left Behind
*Worked with students to increase Pell Grants
*Voted against the Iraq War Resolution and in favor of funding to support our troops.
*Supports Same Sex Marriage...


To tell me to Fuck off is against DU rules and I think that was a crappy thing to say to me... I have not been mean or rude to you......

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. Good, support Feingold then

And quit whining about other Democrats who aren't Feingold. Feingold supports Kerry's withdrawal plan. Why won't you?

[dogday]

142. I am not whining about anything, you are..

You have the problem, I don't... I said I would put my money on the man who did not vote for the war to begin with and for some reason, you can't stand it that I say that... What is the problem if I choose to support someone else.. I have not said one bad thing about Kerry or any other Dems... You have perceived it as such though....

[Zhade]

136. Why, so we can repeat the same war crime later?

Do you LIKE dead American soldiers and innocent Iraqis?

Fuck NO, I'm NEVER going to forget how we were lied into this war, and how many went along with it.

Were you one of them, at the time?

[karynnj]

67. Saying his vote was a profound mistake

on Russert was no different than what he said last October - when he said that he said his vote was wrong and that he shouldn't have trusted Bush and that he took his share of responsibility.

This does NOT mean he voted to go to war in Iraq. He's given his reasons - he's also said that given how it was used, his vote was wrong. What you call spinning - isn't. We are saying that the reasons he gave for voting that way are the reasons he voted - and they aren't that he wanted war. If that were true, he wouldn't have spoken out against it when Bush attacked even though Saddam was co-operating. It also means the vote wasn't political, as by speaking out he would undo any political good the yes vote had.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. Spin intervention.

"Trusting" Chimp is a rationale. It conveniently removes responsibility for a sound vote.

Kerry has moved on. So should you. If you believe for a second that the reason Kerry voted for the IWR was a "trust" issue, you're, imho, sadly misinformed.

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. I think YOU need to move on.

The only person bitching about the IWR is you. It's a four year old vote and there is, quite literally, NO reason for you to harangue endlessly about it.

It's time to move on yourself and support Kerry's withdrawal plan, or get out of the way to make room for those who are actually presenting solutions.

[dogday]

96. That just is not true if you read the threads

More and more people are picking their candidate and at least they have the good manners not to try to diss anyone who disagrees with them... This is ridiculous, nobody is stopping you from endorsing Kerry, but you are dissing everyone who does...

[WildEyedLiberal]

115. I have a problem with people who hate the facts.

I have NOT bashed Feingold. He's a great guy. But YOU feel the need to tear Kerry down to make Feingold look better and I call bullshit. The IWR changed NOTHING. Protest BUSH who started the fucking war, or get over it.

[dogday]

118. I never mentioned Kerry's name, how could I of

torn him down? Because I say I support Russ because he could not support this war from the beginning. If more had taken that stance, my Son would be home today... I have a reason to feel this way and it has nothing to do with Kerry, or the Dems..


I love the facts, I don't believe I have misrepresented them at all....

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. BS. You came into this thread to whine about the IWR

Even though it had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH'S DECISION TO INVADE.

If you love the facts, blame BUSH and BUSH ALONE for this war and concentrate your ire towards him instead of bitching about Kerry, who - in case you hadn't heard - is proposing a resolution to bring them HOME. So sign it, if you're serious about bringing the actual troops home, and support those who are working NOW to end the war.

[dogday]

123. That was what this thread is about, look around,

There are many posts saying what I am saying, so stop your screaming... I will bitch about this war cause I have a child invested in it and not you or God himself can keep me from doing that..

[WildEyedLiberal]

124. So bitch about BUSH then

And stop shifting blame where it doesn't belong. It's not that hard. Support those who want to end the war.

[dogday]

125. I am not shifting blame, I am endorsing

a Candidate I feel is worthy... I never assigned any blame, I said I would support someone who never voted for the war.. I never blamed anyone.. You took that ball and ran with it... I do support those who want to end the war, what are you nuts, I am a mother of a soldier........


Stop saying I blame anyone, I respect a person's decision and I know I have a right to say it....

[janx]

146. I knew and many others knew that the IWR vote essentially

gave Bush a blank check and that Bush was hell bent on this war before the vote was taken. So apologies from Kerry now are tepid at best.

Sorry.

Kerry has had a very distinguished career as a senator, and I admire him for that. But if he decides to run again--it would be a mistake.

[FrenchieCat]

158. Here's the "Key" in John Kerry's own words....

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[DireStrike]

37. Even THIS doesn't mean he would like to take it back!

All it means is that this is the one he most wants to take back. He might not want to take it back at all, but he wants to take back the rest of his votes even less.

I am so sick of this thing. Every Dem should have seen through the bullshit and voted against it.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

39. You are so right! He did not he would not vote for it again, just that

he regrets it!

:popcorn:

[sandnsea]

47. Oh good god

How many times does he have to say he would not have gone to war???

He said it in a speech in Jan 2003, Mr. President, do not rush to war.

He said it on the eve of the invasion, that he was disgusted that it had come to war and that Bush had not done the diplomacy and it was a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted."

He said it in December 2003, that if you thought he would have started this war, then not to vote for him.

He said it in 2004, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

How many times does the man have to say he would not have gone to war before some of you people can hear it.

[karynnj]

68. Is their anything he could have said that would please you?

It sounds like a RW convoluted argument. He said he regretted it profoundly and that it was the vote he would most want to take back. Incidently - he has said he would take other votes back in the past. In his Senate speech on why he was voting against Roberts (because he wouldn't answer questions on some issues) he spoke of some votes for previous judges he would change.

Clearly Kerry wants to put this behind him - if you can't get that what he wants to do is stop this as best he can and that he does care deeply, you clearly are not capable of understanding what he said at all.

[ladjf]

40. It's about damn time! I'm not too impressed by his very late

disavowal of his war decision.

[killbotfactory]

42. FINALLY

:toast:

[sandnsea]

43. Where've you been?

He said this last year. How did you miss it?

[dogday]

50. I would rather put my money behind the man

who never voted for it in the first place... We knew going into this war was wrong... And there were a couple of Dems who voted against this from the start-One being Feingold....

My Son is in Iraq, I have reason not to want to support anyone who supported this war.....

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. What about supporting anyone who wants OUT?

We were going to Iraq because Bush was going to invade it regardless. Democrats had nothing to do with it. Kerry has proposed a bill to withdraw from Iraq. If you are being truthful and you actually care about ending the war, it would behoove you to support those who are presenting solutions. Feingold endorsed Kerry's withdrawal plan. If you actually care, you'll focus on 2006 and supporting those who are providing plans to get out now, instead of living in the past and sitting on your ass and whining about things you can't change.

[dogday]

94. I am sacrificing a son to this war --so

don't tell me I am sitting on my ass doing nothing...I spend every single freaking day worrying about my only Son, so I take this war personally, understand..

I believe it should of never been in the first place and I support Feingold who never voted for it in the first place... Feingold never voted for it, he knew....


I spend more time calling my reps and the dems that I do talking --- this is important to me, very important...

[Adelante]

159. That's a big worry

I hope he stays safe.

[deutsey]

57. Well, whew...thank God...that changes everything.

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

58. lol

I feel the same way.

[ecstatic]

59. that won't bring back the thousands of lives lost- too little, too late!

This is why Kerry will never get my vote again! He only says things when its politically expedient to do so.

[LittleClarkie]

60. Do you feel similar ire for the others who voted for IWR?

Hillary, for instance?

If she was our nominee in 2008, would you vote for her?

[zulchzulu]

61. Notice how Timmy used the Repug frame for the IWR vote

It wasn't a vote "for the war". It was a vote for the UN to continue inspections and report back what WMD were in Iraq. The IWR certainly was not in any way an open recommendation for Chimpy to preemptively attack Iraq.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

203. It wasn't a recommendation.

But it conferred authority.

Anyone who was listening to the banging of the war drums knew what that entailed. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

62. I'm very, very glad to hear this.

I always knew that he regretted it, though. And I'm certainly not one of his most rabid supporters.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. I'm glad to hear it, too.

The spinbots won't be happy but at least we have closure.

[sepia_steel]

63. Sigh.

That was a really disappointing read. I hate to admit it but I am hoping that we get Clark into the primaries and that he wins. I deeply respect him but he is just not representative of what we want, is he? Being VERY general here, don't everyone jump up my arse, please.

[LittleClarkie]

65. Can I have him as Attorney General then?

Sec of State would be nice as well.

[NightOwwl]

73. Yeah...now that the polls show 9 out of 10 Dems...

and 6 out of 10 independents think the war was a mistake.

Kerry is really sticking his neck out on this. :sarcasm:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. It wasn't politically motivated.

So stop saying that!

[LittleClarkie]

78. In the words of the man himself:

"When it comes to issues of war and peace and young Americans dying, nobody spins me. Period."

[Texas_Kat]

107. No spinning, except for focus groups ....

From TIME:

....Devine, Bob Shrum and Mike Donilon fitted Senator John Kerry for a similar straitjacket in the 2004 campaign. In some ways, the Kerry campaign was even worse. After all, the Senator was a student of politics. He had spent his entire life hankering for the presidency. And then he proceeded to make precisely the same mistake as Gore, allowing himself to be smothered by his consultants.

Perhaps the worst moment came with the Bush Administration torture scandal: How to respond to Abu Ghraib? Hold a focus group.

But the civilians who volunteered for an Arkansas focus group were conflicted; ultimately, they believed the Bush Administration should do whatever was necessary to extract information from the "terrorists."

The consultants were unanimous in their recommendation to the candidate: Don't talk about it.

Kerry had entered American politics in the early 1970s, protesting the Vietnam War, including the atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers in Vietnam. But he followed his consultants' advice, never once mentioning Abu Ghraib—or the Justice Department memo that "broadened" accepted interrogation techniques—in his acceptance speech or, remarkably, in his three debates with Bush.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1181593,00.html

[sandnsea]

80. He said it was a mistake the day it started

He's been saying it was a mistake for 3 years. He said his vote was a mistake last year. You and Rummy must have been getting frosted together.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Actually one of the huge mistakes Kerry made in 04

was NOT saying that his vote was a mistake. My memory isn't that short-term, thank you. In fact,.... he specifically stated that 'his vote' wasn't a mistake. You can try to re-write history all you want, but Google's cache lasts forever.

I've mostly avoided posting anything either in 'pro-Kerry' or 'anti-Kerry' threads because I've been working on 06 campaigns and don't have time to get into arguments about whether Kerry is still relevant -- or not.

So far as I can tell, the only thing Kerry is sorry for is that he chose the wrong vote "politically" -- in the long run.

You're welcome to continue the 'pro-Kerry' pontificating -- it won't make him less of a 'politician'.

[sandnsea]

189. The vote isn't the war

Two totally different things. You can google all you want, it'll never make a vote for a diplomatic process into the Commander in Chief's deployment of troops.

He said his vote authorizing the process wasn't a mistake. He said the war Bush launched was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And if he'd said his vote was a mistake, you'd have seen another McGovern landslide loss. People understand the vote, they don't understand Bush lying to start a war. And they don't understand why Democrats don't make BUSH accountable for that.

I can tell them why. It's because Democrats continue to mix up the vote with the war, mostly because they think "I didn't vote for the war" wins them political points. It doesn't. People are able to put the vote in the context of the time and put it behind them a long time ago.

[Texas_Kat]

207. Yes, I can certainly connect the dots

First with Kerry's politican ambition to run for President in 04 and now again (that he's changed his tone) with his political ambition to run again in 08.

Some of the American people certainly do "put the vote in the context of the time". As long as there are people dying in Iraq and American sons and daughters in harms way because of the IWR, it's very unlikely that Americans will "put it behind them".

[Yollam]

90. Wow. Good old John Kerry. Too little, too late, yet again.

When asked whether he wished he had voted differently on the eve of the election, he said no. NOW he regrets it? The fraudulent nature of the war was obvious when he made that vote. The failure of the invasion to even accomplish Bush's arrogant goals was obvious on the eve of the election.

I'm almost glad Kerry lost. What the hell would we do with president who seems so consistently slow in the uptake?

[Hubert Flottz]

92. He should regret it!

He was a fool...

[LWolf]

98. I am profoundly sorry that

it took him so long to find and recognize that regret. I regretted his, and others' vote at the time it happened.

I'm also profoundly sorry that mainstream democratic voters continue to focus their attention on Democrats who find a way to regret bad choices years, lives, and dollars later. Why don't they focus their attention on party members who don't have to "regret" anything?

[LSK]

106. actually he admitted he was wrong months ago

In his speech at Georgetown last summer or fall when he 1st came out in favor of leaving Iraq within timetables.

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. Facts are irrelevant to many here n/t

[FrenchieCat]

141. Interesting.....I wasn't aware of this....

do you have a link on that?

do you at least know what date, so I can look it up? :hi:

Thanks!

[mdmc]

108. thanks rummyisfrosted... to late to r

:kick:peace and low stress...

[coalition_unwilling]

110. Is Kerry willing to go to jail to stop the war? I doubt it.

His crocodile tears don't really cut the mustard with me, since I was one of 30 million worldwide who marched against the war on Feb 15, 2003.

His regret now seems "convenient," not genuine.

[antonialee839]

113. I'd like to hear an apology like this: " I'm sorry I was only thinking

of my political career when I cast the Iraq vote. I was afraid I would be labeled soft on terror,
anti-American etc."

[Vektor]

119. Exactly! Can we shut the fuck up about it now? Maybe bitch about

a real, current issue? That'd be great. Thanks.

Or perhaps maybe we ought to go back to discussing his windsurfing or his haircuts. Because those are current relevant things to fixate on, too.

:sarcasm:

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. Like cockroaches to a stagnant pile of waste

These threads really bring 'em out.

[IndianaGreen]

128. Redemption and repentance is a wonderful thing coming from Kerry

Unlike the presumptive leading candidate for the Presidential nomination, I won't mention her name, Kerry has repented and has more than redeemed himself in the last few weeks since he took the torch in the Alito filibuster, expressed his support for Feingold's censure motion of the war criminal Bush, and has put a troop withdrawal plan on the table.

It is counter-productive to continue to harp at Kerry for his past mistakes, instead I will close ranks with him for as long as he fights on behalf of the Republic and the Constitution.

[Sapere aude]

138. I can't let it go at that. He knew as well as we did that there was no

reason to go to war.

[Geek_Girl]

143. I wish he had said this during election time

He may be president today.

[Jigarotta]

169. well, I profoundly regret in believing in him.

same shit, different pile, that smells just a tad better only because of his fibre diet.

[Marie26]

175. Too little, too late. nt

[LittleClarkie]

201. Too trite, try again

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, if he builds the big "mo" with his plan, there won't be any such thing as too little too late if the troops come home.

I'm telling you, the Winter Soldier hath returneth.

[moondust]

193. Technically

the IWR was not a declaraton of war. But only a blind person couldn't have seen through it. He (and others) did it for political reasons. So why wouldn't he do a lot of other things for political reasons, given the opportunity, when the chips are down?

[Cleita]

200. I do respect and like Kerry on many issues, but on this IWR

"regret" he gets the Pink Tutu award from me.