When I Supported Kerry In The Primaries, I Said His IWR Vote Was Based On Politics

[THUNDER HANDS]

and the fact that he voted for it was just a pure play to not look weak on national security.

I fully admitted that, and didn't try to defend him when when he was attacked for it. Because I knew the real reason he voted for the war.

Will Hillary supporters admit the same?

[DJ13]

1. "Will Hillary supporters admit the same?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[blm]

2. Big important difference, though, Rat. Kerry said he'd OPPOSE Bush on war IF he

rushed into it and did not let the weapon inspections be the determining factor. Kerry stayed on this point solidly and when Bush INVADED anyway, Kerry publicly OPPOSED that invasion and continued to oppose the DECISION consistently.

It was the corpmedia who turned the vote into a ProWar position while ignoring the opposition to the DECISION to invade.

Hillary had the chance to weigh in against the DECISION to invade, and I believe every lawmaker who voted for the resolution had an ESPECIALLY important DUTY to stand in opposition to Bush's RUSH to war when weapon inspections were proving force was not necessary.

If more had done so at the time, we could have had a chance to cut through with the message that Bush was acting in violation of the spirit of the IWR.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. with all due respect

I don't buy that argument. If that's the argument for voting in favor of the resolution, then no Dem senator would have voted against it, because they could just go 'well, don't rush in.'

They knew what the resolution meant in real terms. Both Kerry and Hillary knew the deal (Edwards too).

They were running for president. They knew the decision to invade had already been made. The wheels were already in motion before the vote came up.

[mathewsleep]

5. check your in box

i shrunk the barock image for you.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. YES!!!

Thanks, man. I love it!!!

[mathewsleep]

20. anything

for an obama supporter

[blm]

13. I understand that, but there was another PHASE to get through and that was the

decision to invade itself.

If a senator believed the resolution's call for weapon inspections before the determination was a real point to use against the invasion they were obligated to oppose the decision to invade.

Kerry did. Most others did NOT and showed their SUPPORT for the decision to invade.

Bill and Hillary and most wellknown Democrats did this. If it was all about CYA for Kerry, he would have followed the conventional wisdom the same as the rest of them did, even as the media was in full drumroll mode after the first month of what APPEARED to be overwhelming success.

THAT is what separates the IWR voters for me.

[beachmom]

9. You know, BLM, I'm not sure I 100% agree. You know how Kerry

talks about something in his "gut". Well his aye vote for the IWR was NOT a gut vote. It was a technical vote, and if he wasn't running for prez, I think he would have said the same thing, and voted nay.

It is clear now that he thinks he was DEAD WRONG to have voted that way, and that he carries guilt for it, and has worked overtime and taken hits to right that wrong.

[blm]

15. Sure. But his opposition to the decision to invade separates him from the CYA crowd who

stayed supportive of Bush BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the invasion.

He was still faced with whether or not the war would be successful, but he stayed true to what he said on the floor of the senate before the IWR vote - that IF Bush went to war unjustly he would rise in opposition. And he did.

[beachmom]

17. That is true. His rhetoric remained consistent. But I just don't

think his heart was in that vote.

[sandnsea]

19. I think it was a tortured decision for him

I don't think it was political, I think it was a hope that we could control the push to war and it failed. But this is why I always say it isn't just about that vote, it's about what they all said for years after the vote and Hillary Clinton supported the actual war.

[karynnj]

23. I agree with you , Magic Rat, and BLM - which is a real feat.

Maybe years from now, Kerry in what would be one of the most fascinating autobiographies, given his life may explain what happened. until then all we can do is look at who he is and what he said at various times - which in his case makes sense as he is an honest person.

From 2002 through 2004, Kerry made a case for why he voted as he did - and it was always consistent. The list of the Bush promises of what he would do and failed to do is familiar. It was in his IWR speech, in the Georgetown speech saying not to rush to war, immediately after the invasion, when the war was at 70+% approval and through 2004. But, in 2005, he admitted that he was wrong to have voted for it because it was wrong to give that authority and trust it would be used as promised. In 2006, he went much further, both in the Pepperdine and the TBA speech he said that the war was immoral.

Mentally listening to all the first set of speeches, Kerry is articulate and as expected, given the excellent lawyer he is, it was a good case. But, there is a huge difference between those well reasoned justifications and the words and poetry of the 2006 speeches after the Dissent speech. The difference is you can tell he was speaking not just from his brilliant mind, but from his heart and soul. In those speeches, he is amazing - as he was in all his environmental speeches. This was the Kerry of 1971. It was like the endorsement speech he made for Obama.

I suspect that Kerry likely knew that war was extremely likely - no matter what he did. He may have intellectually thought that with Democrats joining Bush, they might have more leverage pushing him to stay with the international community - possibly averting a war, but at minimum going as part of the international community. In his IWR speech, he speaks of how the critics (including himself) had pushed Bush to stop and go to the UN and Congress. At that point it was not the obvious sham it is now. He also spoke of how he would not have voted for the original language - and spoke of the changes made. At that point, the fact that those changes meant nothing to Bush, who would have done the same under any resolution was not known. Oddly had Democrats not fought for those changes, Kerry and others likely would have voted no. From his own knowledge of how Pakistan got the BCCI funded bomb with no one knowing they were making progress and knowing Iraq borders the former USSR which had unsecured WMD, I assume that he could not have ruled out there being WMD.

Still as Beachmom says, he could have given almost the identical speech - but at the end said that he could not vote yes at that time because that whole list that he ended up citing so many times needed to happen before it would be a war of last resort - and that, at that point Bush could come back for authorization. That very likely was where his heart was at and had he done that he would likely have been much happier with his vote. The obvious pain in his eyes when he answered about the vote showed - it was also the only time he ever seemed the least bit defensive.

From everything he did in 2002, from being one of the first to complain that Bush appeared ready to attack Iraq and that he could not use the terror resolution onward to being one of the first and most consistent speaking out, show that he was not pro-war and that he would not have taken the country to war if he were President. The way the resolution was pushed and the language, likely would have made it nearly impossible to run for President in 2004, especially for Kerry - who read antiwar poetry on the Senate floor before Gulf I, fought Reagan's covert wars in Central America and famously spoke in 1971. That vote, though it did not make war more or less likely, was in his case contrary to who he is - which makes it sadder. But, even in 2004, I never questioned whether he would have started the war - he wouldn't- or that he would not work to bring peace as fast as possible. At the time, I thought his history in the 1970s and 1980s would make him unique in changing the foreign policy of the last 50 years.

Close to the case made for Obama. It may in fact be that vote that made Kerry chose to not opt in in 2008.

[joeybee12]

4. Probably, and her road to not look "wear" (sure you meant weak)

is a longer and harder one simply because she's a woman.

[aquart]

6. Which was why it pissed me off.

On the board the other day was the first time I ever read the explanation that the Democrats believed it was going to be another quick in and out which meant a no vote would be eminently spinnable as obstructive, unpatriotic, and aiding terrorism.

There's also the point of hindsight not being useful for the ones who PREVENT a war. They can never tell the people how awful it WOULD have been. That's hard for some to imagine. ESPECIALLY when the Republicans would be selling the unfought war as the solution to all our problems, if only our leadership had had the strength and courage to actually lead.

[karynnj]

24. It was also the case that in 2002, none of the people you

are referring to could have stopped the war. Bush already had the votes from the Democrats who had already committed to it and the Republicans. He also would have invaded no matter what the amendment said - he likely would have used the same signing statement.

The other problem was that there was ample precedent that the President could attack as CIC declaring the troops in the region were threatened. It is extremely hard to find a case where Congress has prevented a war in our history. The closest I can think of in the last 50 years was that the Democrats in the 1970s did put roadblocks in the way of the covert Central American wars with the Boland amendment. But, in the 1980s, Reagan simply worked around it - and Kerry by exposing it ended some of it. (Without his investigation that scandal would likely be known as Iran/hostage as the entire Contra piece might not have been put together.)

[beachmom]

7. A third option:

She voted for the war in order not to look weak, AND she voted for the war because she was FOR IT. However, she thought it was poorly executed. I think that is the truth.

[joeybee12]

8. I was pissed at all the dems who voted, though mainly at Kerry and DiFi

because they were out there making the case against it, and in the end, voted for it. It was inexplicable. At least Hilary didn't go out and say how awful this was before voting for it. I sucked it in when Kerry got the nomination, but I've never liked him since. Same with DiFi.

[Tom Joad]

10. it was a political and criminal act. they knew better.

let them rot in political hell.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. I don't think any of us who weren't put in the position

the Senators were know just why they did what they did. Remember the atmosphere of the country at the time. We don't know what kind of pressure was put on them and by whom. And, by his own admission, Barack doesn't know what he would have done had he been in the same position. We didn't hear what they heard so we can't know.

[beachmom]

14. Actually, Barack was trying to be diplomatic. He thought Kerry & Edwards

were wrong to vote aye, but since he was the keynote at the convention, he couldn't come right out and say it.

He said at that time, quite clearly, that to him "the case had not been made".

[BlackVelvet04]

21. So, he didn't mean what he said at all? n/t

[Maven]

16. Will you admit that Obama kept voting to fund it not to look weak?

[beachmom]

18. Well, at least for a while, the idea was to try to fix the mess we made.

But once Dems had a plan to unite on -- the timetable for withdrawal -- and it was vetoed by Bush, then Obama stopped voting for the funding.

I think the IWR vote was more of a test than funding.

[Radical Activist]

22. That vote probably lost him the election.

It made him look like an unprincipled flip-flopper every time he criticized the war. Its another reason why Clinton is unelectable.