Clark or Kerry? peace or war?

[robbedvoter]

http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/25/63853/2133


I won't go here in the perplexing reasons that made Kerry oppose the Gulf war but approve the second Iraq war - predicated on the same reasons as the first. Others have done it and will continue.
     

What worries me is the preemption doctrine no one asks him about. It woried Clark enough to speak to Congress against it in September 2002 http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv and address his fellow candidates in the first debate:

Clark:And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.

Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ; ;notFound=true

This is how Clark explains it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/ But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense."

Kerry however, had a speech after last year yellow cake SOTU in which he said: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722

Any president - this is as good as a promise that president Kerry will follow Bush's romp through the world
.

And, to follow his words with action, Kerry sponsored the Syria accountability act. He writes a constituent:

"I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.  http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576

So, the choice really is between someone who pledged not to take us into war unless it is ABSOLUTELY the last resort and someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war by cosponsoring legislation.

War or peace?

[isbister]

1. Re: What worries me...

Read Kerry's whole speech and worry no more! If you only read two lines of any speech you really might not get the right idea about what a person is saying. If you had read even the the first two paragraphs of Kerry's speech, you may have been comforted and not had to put yourself through such worry:

"I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11th.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us - both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq - decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722

March 18, 2003 is quite a bit more than the "after last year yellow cake SOTU". Why do that?

[robbedvoter]

2. Why did he co-sponsor the Syrian accountability act then?

This is the equivalent of IWR - the SWR! WHY?????

[isbister]

9. WHY?

You haven't read the SAA, have you? You should:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.982:

Have you read the IWR?

[cornermouse]

3. Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, all of them in D.C.

They were voting for things that (1) were not yet printed or (2) were printed so shortly before the vote that they couldn't read all of the big print. Granted they couldn't control when it was printed, but when you're in Washington and you don't know what's in the bill, common sense should tell you to cast a "no" vote.

We are expected to know what is in anything that we sign. Why not them?

[robbedvoter]

4. Kerry WROTE the damn thing. That's what co-sponsoring means

Then he didn't vote on it. I guess, because he knew what was in it?

[cornermouse]

5. Actually, I was thinking of things like the budget,

Patriot bills, and other more general votes. I have not been very happy with most of the Washington democrats for a while now.

[isbister]

6. Kerry WROTE the damn thing

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations (introduced 5/1/2003)

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.982:

Kerry didn't sign on until 7/17/2003

[robbedvoter]

14. So? is this supposed to reassure me? That he waited a bit?

he co-sponsored a bill that allows W to attack Syria - which part of this is good news?

[isbister]

26. No

reading it might. You haven't read the SAA, have you? You should because you do not know what it is:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.982:

Have you read the IWR?

Anyway the point was that you said Kerry wrote the bill and that was an inaccurate statement.

[MoonRiver]

7. It is indeed disturbing.

It feels so politically calculated, despite the devastation such policy is sure to cause our country and the entire world. I'm very angry with the lap dog mentality of our Dem leaders in Congress toward *. Kerry is, of course, so much better than * that there's no contest between the two. Still, I would be much happier if Kerry had stood up to His Lowness and done the right thing over Iraq, Patriot Act and more. I'm also disappointed with his dismissing of *'s AWOL history.

[emulatorloo]

12. Kerry has never been for pre-emptive war

But he has always been against weapons proliferation. These are not simple Yes/No issues.

Re IWR I am going to try to put this simply

1. Bush said Hussein had WMDs and was getting Nukes
2. CIA, etc showed Top Secret Evidence to the Senate that we never saw
3. Lots of people were convinced, including my great Senator Harkin
4. Bushed promised to work hard to get inspectors in, and go to the UN to help get Saddam disarmed. Colin Powell promised.
5. Bush said he would use war as a last resort, and it wouldn't be unilateral
6. Bush broke his promises and used war as the first resort, and Kerry has been screaming about it ever since.

Who is to blame here? John Kerry, or a President that brings highly compromised intelligence to the Senate and promises to only go to war as a last resort?

There are parts of the patriot act that are good - tougher on international terrorism, info sharing between law enforcement, drying up of sources of money for terrorists. But Bush and Ashcroft have abused it to spy on Americans. And Kerry worked hard to get the sunset clauses in -- elsewise it never would have expired.

[robbedvoter]

15. No need for W vs kerry - no one here votes W. This was Clark vs Kerry

So, changing the subject ain't helping Kerry here.

[emulatorloo]

36. It *is* W versus all of them - Clark on MTP said

GEN. CLARK:  A lot of us who have not been privy to secret intelligence simply listened to what people told us.  Secretary of state--Rumsfeld told a group of retired generals shortly before the war, he said, "I know where 30 percent of the weapons of mass destruction are."  Now, when the secretary of defense tells you something like that, you have a tendency to believe him.

GWB lied and lied effectively - I don't see the Clark and Kerry position being so far apart, other than that Clark *says* he wouldnt have voted for IWR. (Clark is my second BTW)

Link for transcript
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/

[robbedvoter]

47. Here's the difference: kennedy , Byrd resolutions were Clark's idea

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm
CLARK: I think that what you have to do is first, the card has been laid on the table about the intent of the United States to take unilateral action, so we've moved past the point we were at in mid- August when there was a discussion and the president was saying he hadn't made up his mind what to do and so forth.
So the president, our commander-in-chief, has committed himself. I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.
And on the other hand, I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted."

Kennedy, Byrd wanted amendments who would have brought W back to UN, Congress. Kerry refused to vote for those . WHY????

[robbedvoter]

51. Clark also said on MTP:

  I would not have voted for the resolution as it was actually finally formulated,

Thanks for the transcript link.

[Iverson]

8. There is one unambiguously antiwar candidate for the Dems.

It's Kucinich, and everyone posting here knows that.

[mmonk]

10. I like DK

but he's not currently in striking distance and I can't tell what the general public thinks of him. I don't know if the general public thinks plans of rapid withdrawal with UN peacekeeping forces is prudent (leaving a vacuum). I don't (prefer NATO if possible and a new decision making body not as political as the UN to oversee elections).

[robbedvoter]

17. I know DK is againat was. What did he say on preemption?

The thread was Clark vs kerry and this hijacks it a tad, but I am interested.

[Iverson]

20. apologies. the intent was not to hijack it.

My mention of Kucinich came from mild annoyance at what seemed to be a false dichotomy of Clark/Kerry - peace/war. Since war - an especially some of the deeply disturbing issues in this war - is important to me, I thought it was likewise important to mention Kucinich's candidacy. I treated the context as the Democratic nomination, not just Clark-Kerry; otherwise I'd probably have mentioned the Greens, and then your thread would be really hijacked by the angry hordes.

In the interest of not hijacking your thread, I'll just include the link to Kucinich's website for those who are actively interested in how his campaign represents his stand on the issues.
http://www.kucinich.us/

Thanks for your patience.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Clark, yes. Kerry never.

As much as his supporters would like to justify it, Kerry voted for the slaughter of thousands to advance his political career.

[mmonk]

13. alot of dems did

and still stand behind their votes for fear of looking "soft on defense". I don't want any weathervanes.

[emulatorloo]

16. See my post above -

Do you think General Clark, when faced with hard evidence (that we never saw) from intelligence agencies that said Saddam was getting nukes would have not agreed with

1. getting inspectors in again
2. going to the UN to strengthen resolutions
3. invading as a LAST RESORT to disarm him with a true multilateral coalition

Why is Ambassador Wilson, the whistleblower on Yellow Cake, endorsing Kerry if this issue is as simple as you make it? Bush lied to them. He faked intelligence.

[robbedvoter]

18. Why didn't kerry support the Byrd, kennedy resolutions?

:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
>
> "We authorized the president as commander in
> chief to take action," Lieberman said. "These
> decisions ultimately can't be made by 535
> members" of Congress.
>
> At a news conference Thursday, Byrd and
> Kennedy conceded that most senators don't
> support their proposals, but said they hope
> that will change as debate continues.
>
> "We're not in a minority out there where the
> people are," Byrd said.

[emulatorloo]

22. Don't know, I'll have to read through it and research it

and crap I gotta work today. . .so I gotta cut myself off from DU in about a half hour. It was hard enough to slog thru IWR and Kerry's speech at the time! :)

Maybe somebody else will pick this up and run w it.

[isbister]

27. Read what you post

The other versions were not going to pass, especially with some Dems jumping ship.

Where were you when all of this was going on? bush and the gang were hell bent for war and only the public opinion polls and the Congress forced him to go to the UN.

Read the IWR. It has conditions in it that the President had to meet. bush did not meet them, lied about it and the republican controlled Congress sold the country down the river for the good of their party... they protected bush from answering to his violating the resolution... just like they are about Iraq not having WMD's

Before the war the Democrats tried to get the matter before Congress and the republicans shut them down. I think Kucinich still has bills wasting away in Committee (:-))

This is bush's war.

[Iverson]

28. Where were you when all of this was going on?

Let's see. I was planning and speaking at an antiwar teach-in, going to rallies, going to candlelight vigils in my home town, and teaching students to reason logically.

I wasn't holding my finger to the wind.

However, my personal activities cannot be used to discover whether an elected representative is doing what he or she should do.

[robbedvoter]

30. Clark recommended narrowing the resolution back in September

I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.
And on the other hand, I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted. I think in dealing with men like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein that diplomacy has to be leveraged by discussions the threat, or in the last instance, the use of force.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

[bigtree]

44. Ted Kennedy supports Sen. Kerry

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Robert Byrd standing beside John before long.

[mmonk]

19. It was so easy to see through the administration

As a last resort. That sums it up completely. Clark would not have had the US go in. He wouldn't have voted for the resolution as it stood because it left the decision up to the admin alone.

[emulatorloo]

21. How easy, really

Easy for you and me and Gen Clark and Gov Dean - but we weren't briefed w Top Secret Intellligence Briefings. Quite frankly, I can't say for sure what I would have done, but I would imagine that those briefings were pretty compelling. Wouldn't the Senate expect that info to be trustworthy?

Why is Ambassador Wilson, the whistleblower on Yellow Cake, endorsing Kerry?

Unless we go w DK, everything else is pretty much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[mmonk]

23. As far as Wilson goes

you'll have to ask him. For many in government as well as the world, the lack of a true threat was easy to see for them. Would Kerry have thought up this invasion on his own at the time it was done? Probably not. But I'm pretty sure Clark would not. From early on, Clark said it wasn't a necessary war. I'm still waiting for Kerry and Edwards to say that now (way after it's been done).

[robbedvoter]

29. Wilson made his stand. I admire him. His courage won't rub off on Kerry

anymore than Ted Kennedy's war opposition will.
kerry is responsible for his decisions like all of us.

[emulatorloo]

32. Bush Lied to Kerry - This is Bush's War, not Kerry's

and if you watched Clark on MTP you will see that Clark's position is mighty similar to Kerry's except that Clark *says* he wouldn't have voted for IWR.

See Post Below for details

(BTW Clark is my second choice)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Are you saying that Kerry was just stupid?

23 other senators saw through the BS. Was Kerry just too dumb to see that bush wanted the war, not because of some mythical "threat" but for political gain.

I don't think that Kerry is stupid, just a cynical politician willing to sacrifice lives to gain votes.

[michaelbmoore]

25. I agree. . .

If Kerry had been doing his job in the Senate, with with the conviction he has *now* instead of pandering, maybe we could have bought enough time get the American people to realize what we were doing with Iraq.

[bigtree]

42. The IWR was seen by some Democrats to 'buy time' and forestall war

How would a 'no' vote retrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441? He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting.

What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy. Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere.

But some, in the pursuit of "political expediency" will attempt to hold Democrats who voted for the IWR as responsible for his arbitrary invasion. Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush

[emulatorloo]

33. No, is Clark stupid too? He believed it as well

See this morning's Meet The Press

[maxr4clark]

57. Sorry, not the same thing

Believing the Secretary of Defense when he says he knows where 30% of the WMD is very different from believing that the President is asking for a resolution allowing him to declare war against a man who tried to assasinate his "Daddy".

Rumsfeld's said clearly that he knows how many WMD the Iraqis have (take the 30% he knows the location of and multiply by 10/3), as well as the position of those 30%. An inquiry, like the one Clark (and now Edwards--hmmm, Clark is starting to look like a leader here) is calling for, and has been calling for since at least September, when "Winning Modern Wars" was published, would be able to look at whatever evidence Rumsfeld had for making that statement, and put him in jail when we find it was pulled out of his hairy ear.

Everything I have seen from Clark about the Iraq war--his congressional testimony in 2002, his statements in "Winning Modern Wars", his statements in the debates, his statements on MTP this morning--all of them show he understood the situation in Iraq far better than any of the other Democratic candidates, and that he has a far better appreciation of exactly how the Bush administration has failed the American people than any of the other candidates as well. He knows what role the President should play, and how Congress should act, far better than Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman.

That's the kind of President I want: the kind that turns out to be right in hindsight. The kind that sees the details and the big picture at the same time. The kind that shows vision and judgement, and has a deep love of the American people. The kind that has been committed to serving his country, one way or another, his whole life.

Edwards may be a good public speaker, but he hasn't convinced me he is committed to serving the country. He was a high-paid lawyer who apparently didn't take any pro bono (unpaid) work; I see that as more of a committment to his career than to any principles. He hasn't even finished one term in service to his country in the Senate, and still he claims to know how to organize our government's relationship with the interests of the people better than the way it has evolved to be. That isn't evidence of commitment to service, that is evidence of ego.

Kerry's career is much more convincing than Edwards' as far as service to country and his principles is concerned. I like Kerry, I just think Clark has a better vision and more experience in the particular areas our country needs at this time. I also think Clark is the most electable of the three. But then, you could tell I like Clark from the start.

[bigtree]

43. Some critics have been in the catbird seat

Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones, Knowing all the while that they would not have to vote on any of these issues. If they had any dignity they would'nt be sticking it to those who were tasked with the responsibility of crafting and actually voting for these bills.

[emulatorloo]

31. Did you see Clark discuss this on MTP this morning?

Timmy had some quote of Clark's saying we'll eventually find WMDs

What Clark then said is very close to what Kerry has said (i'm summarizing):

The admin had intelligence that showed there were WMDs.
We believed it.
It turned out it was politicized.
They lied to us

The only difference between his and Kerry's position is that Clark *said* he wouldn't have voted for IWR.

Transcript at http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/

On edit add link

[mmonk]

34. Clark is saying

to invade Iraq using intelligence manipulation was wrong. He says it was not necessary. When Kerry says those things, let me know.

[emulatorloo]

35. Here you go. . .

John Kerry Responds to Secretary O’Neill’s Iraq Charges
January  10,  2004

For Immediate Release
Des Moines, Iowa -

 “These are very serious charges by a former high ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O’Neill’s revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those promises. It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world. It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter their already damaged credibility as never before.”

[mmonk]

38. Was the war wrong or not? Necessary or not?

[bigtree]

40. Your man Gen. Clark takes a different tack than you

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43

[mmonk]

41. "I think he's right"

Case closed.

[bigtree]

45. Open case

"But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

[mmonk]

48. You don't get what I'm saying.

Clark has said the war in Iraq was not necessary. He still says it was not necessary. He says it is a diversion from addressing the real threat, which is terrorism. He has written this as well as spoken concerning this issue. I do not see nor hear that the invasion was not a necessary endeavor from Kerry.

[bigtree]

50. Then you haven't read any of my posts above

Nowhere does John Kerry assert that the unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation is necessary. Quite the opposite. In his statements and in his reasoning for the IWR vote he argues that war need not be imminent. Indeed, he succeeded, along with others, in getting language inserted into the legislation to that effect.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed to invade and occupy.

[mmonk]

56. So will he say it clearly

that it wasn't a good idea? I know he'd prefer now, that bush got more help, or used more diplomacy. Will he said the bush reasons and strategy for war and fighting terrorism were flawed?

[robbedvoter]

46. Nagourney, yeah. Clark wanted NARROW resolution (see Byrd, Kennedy)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm has another gem, one that Digby didn't notice. (Why should he have all the luck?)
Q. The one question I want to ask from your written statement, you have -- there's been a lot of effort put in on the resolution and the language. You state this one sentence: "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" and this to me is a key question because you know I want our president to feel like he's got all the support of the American people he needs to work this out dealing with the international community.
But, I'm not I don't think willing to vote at this time to say and here you've got my card to go to war six months, eight months down the line if in your mind it hasn't worked out well. I think that's a decision the American people want the Congress to make. What do you mean by that language?
CLARK: I think that what you have to do is first, the card has been laid on the table about the intent of the United States to take unilateral action, so we've moved past the point we were at in mid- August when there was a discussion and the president was saying he hadn't made up his mind what to do and so forth.
So the president, our commander-in-chief, has committed himself. I think it's wise to narrow the resolution that was submitted. I think it will be more effective and more useful and I think it's more in keeping with the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the American government if that resolution is narrowed.
And on the other hand, I think you have to narrow it in such a way that you don't remove the resort to force as a last option consideration in this case. So, not giving a blank check but expressing an intent to sign the check when all other alternatives are exhausted. I think in dealing with men like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein that diplomacy has to be leveraged by discussions the threat, or in the last instance, the use of force.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. The "only" difference is a big difference.

Kerry, to his shame, did vote for the IWR.

[BlueStateGirl]

37. If anyone is interested Clark is on Discovery Times Channel

Documentary (along with Clinton/Blair/Albright/Chirac) talking about Kosovo. Very interesting stuff.

[bigtree]

39. someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war

"cheered the present policy but initiated the next war"
"cheered the present policy but initiated the next war"


Bush's position at the time was that 1441 was sufficient authority to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war. Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.


John Kerry's statements:

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070



The Massachusetts senator has stood by his vote last fall for the Iraq resolution in the face of criticism from anti-war Democrats and rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who opposed the U.S.-led war. Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote "based on the information that we were given."

"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."

Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,"' Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/21/national1525EDT0608.DTL




"He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator." 01/28/2003 Response to President Bush's State of the Union http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003144&keyword=&phrase=&contain=




"I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."
03/14/2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003617&keyword=&phrase=&contain=




I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism—it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands—it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. 01/23/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003082&keyword=&phrase=&contain=




"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

[robbedvoter]

49. The easy argument: Welstone quoted Clark. Welstone & kerry didn't vote

alike. Clark's articles, testimony helped the anti-war vote. Now you see a difference?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=186559

[robbedvoter]

53. After Saddam was captured, Kerry was very proud of his vote for war

needled Dean that if it were for him., the bearded man would still be in the hole. Anyone remembers this?

[bigtree]

54. Innuendo first, supporting facts only on demand?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. And, STILL defends that vote.

Tho' trying to paper it over with feeble whimpers about "being lied to", or justifying it with Saddam's capture make the world safer.

I can't believe that Democrats really want such a weak sister for their candidate.

[emulatorloo]

58. Here's the way I explain it some times

John Kerry does not like bad people having bombs and never has. He still doesn't today.

In 2003, The CIA told the Senate that Saddam had bombs and was going to bomb us.

Powell Cheney and Bush said they would do a lot of things before they resorted to going to war to take the Bombs from Saddam. They said that if they had to go to war, they would get all our friends on board first (france, germany, etc)

They lied, and broke their promises.

Wes Clark said he believed Saddam had bombs too on meet the press this morning because Rumsfield told him so.

Howard Dean has said he wouldn't have believed them. But he is a governor and did not see the secret reports that showed Saddam's Bombs. So who knows for sure? He is a good man though and I will vote for him in the GE if he gets nom.

These reports were made up, but they seemed real, given that they came from intelligence agencies that said they were real.

So it is George Bush's war, Not John Kerry's

But John Kerry still does not believe that bad people having bombs is good. So in principle his vote was right. But he would get the bombs away from bad people by trying everything else, and wouldnt go to war unless it was the only to get the bombs away from the bad person who wanted to hurt us.

Gotta go to work now. . .best regards

on edit clarification

[Leilani]

59. Does anyone have a link

to the voting results in the Senate on IWR?

I can go to C-Span link, but I don't know the bill #.