Why a Conflicted Kerry Voted Yes -- and Later No -- on Iraq

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryiraq29jul29.story

Why a Conflicted Kerry Voted Yes -- and Later No -- on Iraq

By Janet Hook, Mary Curtius and Greg Miller
Times Staff Writers

July 29, 2004

BOSTON — Late one night in September 2002, Senate Democrats were bitterly debating whether to authorize war with Iraq. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) had been agonizing over the issue, but now was urging colleagues to support a compromise that would still give President Bush much of the power he sought. Liberals were steamed.<snip>

Despite such objections, Kerry two weeks later voted for the congressional resolution paving the way for the war. And no issue has dogged him more than that single vote, which has come under fire from the left and the right.

Many Democrats have criticized him for supporting the war. Republicans have accused him of changing his position for political gain.

A look at how Kerry made up his mind on the war vote indicates that he was conflicted before he cast his vote. The concerns that apparently plague him — the questions he asked at public hearings, the caveats and reservations he voiced on the Senate floor before casting his vote — reflected his ambivalence as well as his ambition. And that ambivalence sowed the seeds of Kerry's future shifts on the issue, including his vote a year later against a bill providing $87 billion in aid that went mainly to Iraq.<snip>

Kerry decried what he described as a rush to war, and expressed skepticism about the administration's commitment to working through the U.N. "We don't want to see this initiative turned into a charade, where it is merely a pro forma step on a road to an already determined decision," he said.<snip>

Ultimately, the compromise was scuttled when Bush and then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) reached an accord on a broader war authorization than Kerry had been contemplating. That left Kerry with a decision on whether to support a measure that went further than he wanted or oppose any authorization at all.<snip>

[librechik]

1. Thank you, LA Times!

more of this please

[et]

2. Oh - but HE'S A WAFFLER </loud sarcasm>

Read this article in the morning paper and it tracked with my memory over the past few years. Sounds pretty reasonable as well. I urged (via letters) at the time for Sens to not authorize legislation without language re: multilateral and give inspections full time to work. Most of us DUrs did the same. Wished at the time (and now) that none would have voted Yes, but that's national senatorial politics for you - sometimes you just gotta trust those in charge. Oops! Sorry 1,000 troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi's.

Too bad most of us Merkans can't stand to take the time to understand issues at a deeper level. Nuance and deep thinking are lost on too many of us. Even my own mother (who I believe has voted to the left most of her life) characterized JFK as a waffler since all she hears is Arizona radio/tv.

[peacetalksforall]

3. Very interesting background....

I have been quiet about my disapproval of him during this phase of the campaign (I've been anti-Kerry for Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, patriot act (I still can't get myself to capitalize it as it seems to give it offical meaning), plus the vote to go to war.

Without this background information I felt that he joined with other Senators to vote for Iraq because he didn't want to take a stand against his voters along with Clinton, Shirmer, Edwards, Daschle etc who I believe, conspired to do it as a group. I still consider Byrd, Wellstone, and other who voted no to be my heros. I still feel the same way, but am relieved to know that he was conflicted.

I do feel sorry for him and his partners in those votes because as we knew beforehand and they ignored - it involved a lot of killing. And now he is making noise in support of the Bush cabal policy on Cuba and Venezuela and they could also involve a lot of killing. But I still feel extreme anger with them. My high regard for Clinton and Shirmer and other crashed to the ground and has not been raised. I don't understand how people could vote for killing innocents. The agenda of the corporations was clear. They had to be a part of that support for the corporations. I will never let them off.

He can right his wrongs - it's still not too late on Cuba and Venezuela. He doesn't have to bend to those with a chilling disregard for our youth and people of other countries who never asked us to take them over.

[TahitiNut]

4. The story contains a blatant falsehood!

"In 1998, after Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, Kerry condemned then-President Clinton for not objecting."

The degree of historical revisionism is absolutely appalling!

[redqueen]

9. I noticed that as well

Let them know we know...

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-contactus,0,3944908.htmlstory

[shockingelk]

11. n/t

[Merlin]

5. This accusation is bullshit! It was BUSH who FLIP-FLOPPED first.

JK voted for the bill that would have paid for the funding by reducing the tax-cut to the top 2%. He voted against the bill that would have paid for the funding by borrowing the money.

BUT the Republicans, including George W, opposed the first bill and supported the second. In other words the Republicans voted against the funding bill before they voted for it. And Bush opposed the funding bill before he supported it.

Why can't we get our people to pick up on this simple fact and fight back???

[The Stranger]

6. THE WAR POWERS ACT

Congress had to vote authorization in order to allow the President to introduce the nation's armed forces. But that was a formality to preserve the compromise that is the War Powers Act. Bush was still warned not to go to war without letting the inspectors find out -- what we know now -- that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that it was all a Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney-Perle lie.

[redqueen]

7. This is ridiculous

Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion Iraq funding bill. Is he flip flopping as well?

Why did this article not even mention that fact?

[JohnKleeb]

8. I think his position is very simliar to Harkins

voted for it but feels regret, Harkin repudiated his war vote on TV, I know Kerry hasnt but, I dont think he was an ethuisatic supporter of the war, it was a reluctant choice he made.

[noahmijo]

10. Text speech of Kerry's statement on Iraq War

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[gasperc]

12. Gephardt went behind the caucus's back, our back, and fucked us

it pissed many of us off, it kept many democrats home it fucked us over. Why the bonehead ran for President I'll never know

[goforit]

13. He's a Skull n Bone Loyalist!!....Pretend he is a libral then, salute the

good ole pals of S&K!!!

This group of no-good doers plays the masses for mindless morons.

Hmmmmmmm......

Are the people gonna stand for being walked on??