About Kerry and the IWR vote

[LSK]

Kerry and the congressional democrats voted for use of force as a last resort. What they were voting for was to put lots of pressure on Saddam to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. Which worked 100%. Saddam at the end was VERY COOPERATIVE. Read this if you dont believe me:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Bush betrayed their trust by invading Iraq AND IT WAS NOT A LAST RESORT. So at this point in time, every congressional democrat should be screaming for an investigation into why Bush invaded and it was NOT A LAST RESORT.

The David Kay report was out and there was no WMD found:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

At this point, every member of Congress was lied to about the need to go to war. At this point in early 2004, there should have been calls for an investigation by everyone in Congress. David Kay should have been put on the stand. Hans Blix should have been testifying. Colin Powell should have been asked what happened.

But were any members of Congress calling for an investigation into why we had reached a LAST RESORT in early 2004?? I dont recall any. Not Kerry, not Kucinich, not Boxer, not Biden. Nobody. Not in early 2004.

It is FACT that Saddam was FULLY COOPERATING with the UN weapons inspectors by March of 2003. And what Kerry voted for was working.

Bush saying we had reached a LAST RESORT with Saddam is the big LIE here.

So if you want to be mad at someone, be mad at all of Congress for NOT FOLLOWING UP ON THE IWR VOTE.

[seabeyond]

1. saddam tried to give up in oct, and tell is army to cooperate with the

u.s. bush refused. said fuck you saddam. wanted to invade. that is a good yelling point.

[JanusAscending]

2. DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!!!

n/m

[bemildred]

3. So their defense is that they were dumb and gullible? nt

[emulatorloo]

4. no - their defence is that Powell etc promised them that war was a last

resort and diplomacy was to be pursued w the leverage of IWR. they thought powell was legit, as did many people.

Sadly though powell was out of the loop.

[bemildred]

7. So Bush used Powell to trick them. They were fools.

Anybody that believes Bush is trustworthy is a fool.

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. And they believed him????

I sure as hell didn't.

[emulatorloo]

80. good for you

[KG]

6. apparently so. but 'nuanced' is the term they apologists usually trot out.

[TankLV]

58. Ooo - look out - they'll be comming out after you now!

Apologists and kerry-worshipers.

I never will understand them.

[KnowerOfLogic]

55. or just plain pro-war or making a politically calculated decision

to put their political careers ahead of the lives of our troops and the security of america. Any way you look at it, there is no good excuse for a yes vote on IWR.

[mattclearing]

5. Not true about the last resort.

Read the IWR. It authorizes force. It says it would be nice if inspections could continue and further diplomatic means could be applied, but ultimately Bush has the authority to attack.

Congress voted to give Bush the authority to proceed. Bush didn't even betray them. They knew exactly what they were doing.

[sandnsea]

11. It does not say that

It requires diplomatic and all peaceful means to be exhausted, along with a declaration that Iraq is a threat to the US. A Presidential declaration used to mean something.

But I know it's more important to lie about Democrats than hold Bush accountable. He knows it too. That's why he's so confident he'll keep getting away with all his shit.

[mattclearing]

12. Want me to post the text?

It says that ideally that would be great, but Bush has the authority. I'll update this in a minute.

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

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

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

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

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

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[LSK]

15. these conditions were not held

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

Neither of these conditions were true.

(A) there was not threat to the United States by Iraq

(B) Saddam was cooperating.

[sandnsea]

19. Bush lied

The resolution was fine and was working. Bush lied. But it's more fun to piss all over Democrats. Not at all productive, just more fun.

[TankLV]

60. But they haven't done that. NOBODY except Dean has said that bunkerboy

L-I-E-D.

Nobody is saying that what he did is illegal.

All they say is that they would do it "differently" or "better".

Nobody is damanding anything of bunkerboy.

[globalvillage]

65. Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S

Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S.

Senate leaders from both parties heading an inquiry of intelligence information on Iraq yesterday repudiated Sen. John Kerry's accusation that the Bush administration misled the country into war, and accused him of political posturing.

Mr. Kerry made the accusations against Mr. Bush while campaigning in Lebanon, N.H., on Wednesday.
"I will not let off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally. I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm


When Sen Kerry pointed out the bush* L-I-E, he was blasted by both sides.
Some things never change.

[fujiyama]

71. Rockefeller did cover up for the administration

There was a great Rawstory article on how the intelligence commitee covered up the evidence on the run up to the war.

[TankLV]

73. Well let me be the first to say I was utterly mistaken and erred

and mislead.

And if you took it that way, I apologize.

Actually, thanks for the proof of his statements.

I was wrong you were right.

Thankyou.

[globalvillage]

76. He has used the 'L' word since

Maybe not enough for some.

From the Rolling Stone interview:

Did you get angry at Bush personally?

Look, I know politics is tough, and I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what they do to me. But I do worry, and I am angry, about what they do to the American people. That's what this race is about. It's not about me. I can take it -- I don't care. I've been in worse things. I was on those boats -- I got shot at. I can handle it.

What I worry about is that they lie to America. What I worry about is that they tell the middle class, "We're giving you a tax cut," and the top one percent of America gets more than eighty percent of the rest of the people. I worry that they are unwilling to do anything about the 5 million Americans who have lost their health care.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6562106

[mattclearing]

26. Doesn't matter. It gives the President the right to determine that.

Based on that, if the President says there's a threat (as he had been for months at that point), there's a threat.

There's no independent verification process detailed...it is completely left to President Bush, who everyone knew wanted to go into Iraq no matter what.

[LSK]

32. and it was proven that there was no threat

So why isnt Congress asking Bush to explain himself???

That is what Cindy Sheehan is doing. Where is Congress??

[mattclearing]

40. Because they are complicit in his deceit.

They don't expect him to explain himself because they'd have to explain too.

They knew Saddam didn't have any weapons; the Congress from Clinton's term knew exceptionally well just how hard Iraq had been decimated by sanctions.

[blm]

53. If the prez says there is a threat AFTER the weapons inspections and AFTER

diplomatic measures and he determined ALONE that Iraq was a threat to national security....then the DSM proves that he did not make that determination based on the exhaustion of the guidelines.

Bush should be impeached BECAUSE of the IWR guidelines that required him to make that determination only AFTER inspections and diplomacy failed.

Bush's determination was a lie written to congress and sent as an official document as per the IWR. Impeach him.

[LSK]

13. a matter of interpretation

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[sandnsea]

21. "diplomatic or other peaceful means"

No it isn't, it's quite clear. Bush lied.

[sandnsea]

8. What?!?

No call for investigations??? Did you just MISS the reports that came out of Congress last year?? Do you not understand the purpose of Kerry's DSM letter was to have the memo included in the ongoing war intelligence hearings?

Bushbots aren't the only ones suffering from myopic news sources.

[LSK]

14. is there an Congressional investigation into why Bush invaded? n/t

[sandnsea]

17. yes n/t

[LSK]

20. can you give any details?

[sandnsea]

23. google is your friend

The various hearings and Congressional investigations have been discussed for nearly 2 years. If you don't know about them by now, it's not my responsibility to educate you.

[bpilgrim]

68. DU is your friend, too - please post LINKS -> thx!

it's a DU tradition :hi:

peace

[sandnsea]

77. I don't play that game

Because not everybody on DU is my friend.

[bpilgrim]

92. it's a tradition, not a game

fyi

peace

[sandnsea]

99. Tell it to the OP

If "tradition" matters so much to you.

[LSK]

94. its not a game, its about credibility

When you make claims, be prepared to back them up with something. I see the look it up yourself crap enough from freepers. We dont need that here.

[sandnsea]

98. Where's yours?

You started a thread with unsubstantiated bullshit. I think it's only reasonable for me to tell you to go educate yourself before you start any more. Because like I said, not everybody is my friend, and there's more than one kind of freeper.

[bpilgrim]

100. insinuating DU'ers are freepers is frowned upon, too

fyi

peace

[sandnsea]

105. More manipulation of my words

Have you asked the OP for links to back up her assertions?

[LSK]

107. i believed he was refering to me, not you re: freepers n/t

[LSK]

102. so what did I forget to post a link to??

The IWR?? I posted other links. And I said the practice of "saying do your own research" or "go look it up yourself" is something I see from freepers a lot. Do you now deny that you did that???

I am not calling your a freeper, I am just saying dont resort to a practice that they use all the time.

[sandnsea]

108. evidence to back up your assertions

that you made in your original post.

There are so many investigations into so many aspects of Iraq, the intelligence and the war, that it would be impossible to link to all of it. There is SO MUCH in fact, that a simple google search would turn up enough to keep you busy for weeks. It's not obscure, it's easy easy easy. It would be like asking me to educate you on how a bill becomes a law. So common, you ought to know. And if you don't, you shouldn't ask somebody else to educate you. Take responsibility for learning, or don't talk to me.

[LSK]

109. i am specifically talking about an investigation into IWR violations

I do not know of any. The closest would be the DSM hearings. And just because I am not familiar with something does not mean I am not backing up my assertions. I provided links about how Saddam was cooperating and how David Kay found nothing. I admit I should have posted the IWR. Byut besides that why would I not provide any other links unless I was not aware of something. Wouldnt that not fit the pattern of my post????

[sandnsea]

113. following up on the decision to invade

You say nobody in Congress is concerned about Bush's decision to invade. I say you can't make a statement like that without SOMETHING to back up the assertion. It's a baseless accusation.

Especially in light of the NUMEROUS investigations into Iraq, the intelligence, the war, etc. As well as KERRY'S call for the further investigations that were promised, along with the inclusion of the DSM. If you don't know about them, you aren't paying attention OR you're intentionally singling out Kerry for bashing as your post is titled "Kerry and the IWR Vote". In light of all of that, I refuse to play the freeper "link please" game. Because you clearly don't care about the facts or you'd go get them.

[dsc]

52. That isn't the same thing

The War intelligence hearings were specificly forbidden into looking at what Bush did with the intelligence he recieved. They only looked into the intelligence itself. To my knowledge, there have been no hearings whatsoever about the decision to go to war.

[sandnsea]

83. Nov 2003

The OP's claim is that Democrats haven't said a word about Bush's decision to go to war and use of the intelligence to justify that decision. That just isn't true. They have pushed for it and it was supposed to be done in the second part of the intelligence hearings, the one with the report released last summer. Those are the intelligence hearings that Kerry wrote his letter about, pushing for the promised second part and the inclusion of the DSM. I presume you remember the letter, here is the link about Democrats pushing for inquiry into Bush's use of intelligence. Clear back in November 2003. There have been alot of inquiries into this war, in alot of areas. Most of what we know is because of the hearings and inquiries Democrats pushed for. It is self-defeating to continue to lamblast Democrats when most of them are doing everything they can to expose this administration.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_11/Congressionalinvestigations.asp

[Crazy Guggenheim]

9. Excellent. What got me is Kerry said he'd 'be the first to denounce

going into Iraq'; I can't remember the exact quote. But then during the campaign he said he still would have voted to go ..........

My rant:

What is holding back the Democrats NOW?!?!?! Public opinion is against Bush and especially his management of the war!! What the hell can be the problem with the Democrats now?!?!?! They have turned into spineless jellyfish!! There is absolutely no reason for them to be this quiet!! Very disappointed!!

However I am proud to say that my Senator, Barbara Boxer and Representative Lynn Woolsey have been more vocal than many of the rest of them!

[sandnsea]

16. Argh

Kerry did not say that. I have posted his quote to YOU, myself. So I know that you know that you aren't telling the truth. Why?

Democrats have been speaking out against Bush and the management of the war. The left calls them warmongers unless they say "withdrawal". Woolsey says "withdrawal" and that's all the left hears. If they actually ever read something, they'd know her resolution doesn't call for immediate withdrawal either. Just the same change of course that most of the rest of the Democratic Party is calling for.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

27. Whoa wait a minute. Let's backup on this. I'll find Kerry's quote

on he'll 'be the first to speak out' in regards to the IWR. In regards to Woolsey, yes that was for a change in course, so I stand corrected on part of it. However I did speak to Woolsey in passing at an event, and without getting to involved in the conversation, she shook her head regarding what Kerry said at the "Grand Canyon" interview that he still vote for it.

[sandnsea]

50. Jan 2003

He did speak out. He was the first to speak out. "Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War".

I don't care what Woolsey and the rest of the leftist pack says he said, I've read her resolution and what she says and what she does aren't remotely the same thing. She has no credibility with me, absolutely zero.

He said a President ought to have that kind of authorization to deal with someone like Saddam and he would vote to give it to a President. That's what he said.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Thank you

I am so tired of this argument.

Our elected representatives were lied to. How dare we criticize how they voted!!

[mike_c]

18. what Kerry voted for was UNNECESSARY at best....

Saddam Hussein had already agreed to full cooperation with the U.N. before the IWR vote. Furthermore, he had dismantled his WMD program nearly a full decade before. He had complied with the U.N. demand for a full report (which the U.S. censored, if you'll recall).

A significant number of Democratic congresspersons and senators voted against the IWR. They were not fooled by the neocon's hyperbole about "smoking gun mushroom clouds," nor were they willing to authorize the president to throw away 50 years of respect for international law against crimes of aggression, or, for that matter, the U.S. Constitution's own requirement that the authority to declare war rests solely with the congress. None of those who stood up AGAINST this criminal enterprise have suffered any political consequences. Quite the opposite-- it's those who voted in favor of the IWR who are scrambling to justify themselves, to spin the facts in their favor, to rely on war apologists' posts like the OP, and who now find themeselves unable to credibly oppose the war against Iraq because they voted to allow it.

on edit: note too that Kerry went on to say, during the campaign and after it became clear that the WMD excuse was bogus-- that he'd have done it all again anyway. I refused to vote for Kerry in 2004 and I will NEVER support any politician who voted in favor of the IWR again, including my own senator Diane Feinstein.

[sandnsea]

25. 11/2002 UN Iraq "material breach"

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

[mike_c]

30. what's missing from that statement...

...is that it occurred under pressure from the U.S., which was actively manipulating the SC in search of justification for an invasion, and was ultimately disproven by BOTH the U.N.'s disarmament inspectors and by Bush's own David Kay team. Relying upon a discredited argument as justification for invading Iraq-- an argurment that did not itself authorize security council members to take action against Iraq in any event-- and in the process committing a crime against humanity (as defined at Nuremberg and codified in the U.N. Charter) is pretty lame, IMO.

[sandnsea]

49. Why misconstrue words?

I never used that resolution as a justification for invading Iraq. It was in response to your own post about the VOTE. Why do you do that? What purpose does it serve to lie and distort the issues that way?

The fact is that in 2002, the situation in Iraq was unclear. It was unclear to EVERYBODY. That's why Kucinich called for inspectors in Iraq. That's why Dean said 60 days or invade. That's why Clark laid out a plan to hold Saddam accountable to disarm.

Frankly, most of those who voted against the IWR did so out of pure partisan politics. Just like the Republicans who voted against Clinton during Kosovo. I always find it comical that the supposed intellectual elite can delude themselves completely when it comes to pure party politics.

[TankLV]

61. Really? Speak for yourself.

I KNEW. We KNEW that it was all bullshit. WE list numerous times the reasons why it was all LIES, ending with all the cute "cartoons" and "drawings" and "renderings" offered for "proof" instead of actual pictures, along with the quotes from proven LIARS in all their statements.

ALMOST IMMDIATELY we KNEW it was all LIES - but somehow our leadership refused to look for themselves!

And you wonder why we're all still so angry at all this bullshit.

Don't try to re-write history - we all were already there.

[sandnsea]

78. Smarter than Kucinich, Dean & Clark?

And every leader of every country in the world? Well bully for you.

[mike_c]

67. the situation was "unclear" because the U.S. was actively...

...doing everything it could to prevent the truth from coming out. It manipulated the weapons inspections, it pursued a campaign of "under the radar" bombing and violence against Iraq to keep the truth obscured, and it used it's considerable diplomatic pressure to insure that the official lies about Iraq were kept on the front burner of international attention. Saddam Hussein had already said Iraq was disarmed. What was unclear about that? Iraq disarmed during the early nineties, nearly a decade before the U.S. invasion. The SC resolution you cited was an example of that manipulation-- it was produced in response to U.S. demands for yet another swirling of the waters to keep up the "Saddam is a bogeyman" rhetoric. But in fact the truth was out there and clear enough-- the U.S. government, including the Clinton administration, BTW-- simply did not want the rest of the world to believe it.

[sandnsea]

79. We know that now

It wasn't as clear then. That or even Dennis Kucinich is a lying traitor.

[mike_c]

81. It was as true then as it is now, and Saddam Hussein turns out...

...to be the one who was telling the truth all along. And in fact, quite a few people DID know it then. There were organizations and websites devoted to telling the truth about Iraq during the sanctions era. It's just that lots of Americans believed their lying government instead of the people who were there, in Iraq, trying to get the word out over the lies. This information did not suddenly come to light during the last year. It simply percolated into public consciousness and became undeniable since the invasion. But I knew it before the IWR, for gods sake, and if I knew it, then people like John Kerry should damn well have known. They're either inexcusably blind, or complicit. I think they're the later, especially since a significant number of dems did know better, and voted against the IWR (including Kucinich).

on edit-- what about those dems that voted against the IWR? If you're correct, that at the time it seemed like supporting the IWR was a wise decision, for whatever reason, do you think those who showed the courage necessary to vote against it acted unwisely?

[sandnsea]

85. Nobody "knew"

Not even Scott Ritter "knew". Back in 98, he said Saddam would have chemical weapons within 6 months of the inspectors leaving Iraq. That's what he said, to Congress. I saw him speak several times during the summer of '02, and he never once said he conclusively "knew" Saddam didn't have weapons. Kucinich didn't "know" either, otherwise why would he have called for inspectors in Iraq? Why do you need inspectors if you "know" there are NO weapons?

And for those who voted against the IWR, there's three reasons. One, partisan politics. Two, like Byrd, constitutional reasons. Three, like Graham, the belief that it was the wrong time to take Saddam on, NOT that he wasn't a potential threat.

And I was on DU in 2003. I remember the tons of "what if they find WMD" threads. DU, as a whole, did not "know" there were no weapons, that's bullshit too.

[mike_c]

86. none of that changes anything, except to excuse either ignorance...

...or complicity in war crimes. Is your ignorance, or Kerry's or anyone else's sufficient justification to launch a war of aggression against a nation that was NO threat to the United States, or even to most of it's own neighbors? Do we know for a fact that any one of dozens of other countries are not somehow a threat to someone, and will our ignorance justify destroying their cities as well? Are you saying that NOT KNOWING was sufficient justification for invading Iraq? Or authorizing such an invasion?

As for folks calling for the resumption of weapons inspections, that was necessary in order to certify that Iraq had complied with the U.N. mandate. Hans Blix has since said that his team would have quickly certified compliance, and that was something the hawks in Washington simply could never allow. So first Clinton, and then Bush forced the ejections of the inspection teams.

Since you're so fond of invoking Scott Ritter's name in defense of the IWR, here's some of Ritter's thoughts about the inspections process that you might want to consider:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/January/28%20o/Iraq%20Invasion%20Was%20a%20Crime%20of%20Gigantic%20Proportions%20Scott%20Ritter.htm

UN weapons inspections were never given a chance. Ever since the Clinton administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998, the US has denigrated the efficacy of the inspection process. This was a policy begun by Clinton, but perfected by Bush in the build-up to war. In October 2002, a month after Saddam Hussein agreed to the unfettered return of weapons inspectors, the US Defense Department postulated the existence of secret production facilities, protected by a “concealment mechanism” designed to defeat inspectors. Thus, even if they returned, a finding of no WMD was meaningless.

Inspectors did return, and they found nothing. Iraq submitted a complete declaration of its WMD holdings, which was dismissed as lies by the Bush administration. Everyone seemed to accept this rejection of fact. “Intelligence information” was assumed to be infallible. And yet it was all just hype.

There was never any serious effort undertaken by the Bush administration to find Iraqi WMD. Prior to the invasion, the US military redesignated an artillery brigade as an “exploitation task force” designed to search for WMD as the coalition advanced into Iraq.

<snip>

A new organization was created, the CIA-led Iraq survey group (ISG), led by David Kay. His job was not to find WMD but to spin the data for the political benefit of the White House. He hinted at dramatic findings, only to suddenly reverse course once Saddam Hussein was captured. Kay told us that everyone had got it wrong on WMD, that it was no one’s fault. He was replaced by Charles Duelfer, whose task was to extend the WMD cover-up for as long as possible. Duelfer was very adept at this, having done similar work while serving as the deputy executive chairman of the UN weapons inspection effort.

I witnessed him manipulate reports to the Security Council, rejecting all that didn’t sustain his (and the US government’s) foregone conclusion that Iraq had WMD.

[sandnsea]

89. Manipulating my words again

The vote isn't the invasion and anybody who would intentionally obscure the two is more interested in politics than the truth. Makes me just as sick as when those on the right manipulate facts for their partisan arguments. And just as sick as when Scott Ritter denies what he said before the war as well. If he knew there were no WMD in 1998, he should have said so. He didn't. Hans Blix didn't say it in 2002 or 2003 either. They didn't say it because they didn't KNOW. And that's why the vote was necessary and why the inspections should have continued. Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bush's decision to invade.

[mike_c]

91. Ritter said in 1998 that Iraq had been "qualitatively disarmed...."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski8.html

<snip>

What was that list of 83 names and why is it so crucial? It is the only way Iraq has of proving the negative, an otherwise impossible demand by the hawks in the Bush administration. As Iraq’s UN Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri put it in his remarks Friday, “You cannot give with an empty hand,” an old Arab saying. What Blix finds promising on “substance” in the list is that these are the men who actually carried out the destruction of materials that could be assembled into weapons of mass destruction if Iraqi scientists knew how to do so. When the UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they had accounted for 95% of the chemical and biological programs, which led Scott Ritter to say Iraq had been “qualitatively” disarmed. What was left were these “gaps” in the records, which UNSCOM’s Richard Butler insisted was the responsibility of Iraq to prove did not exist. I don’t know if he ever asked Baghdad for a list of names of the workers who destroyed the missing materials, but now Baghdad has supplied the list without being asked for it. If the interviews get started now, Blix will be able to report to the Security Council on March 14 that Iraq has been “quantitatively” disarmed, removing any reason for war.

<snip>

Emphasis is mine. That last sentence nicely summarizes the rationale for the IWR. Blix had to be prevented from making that report.

on edit:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/iraq-m29.shtml

...Ritter went on to expose the claims of the Clinton administration that Iraq posed a military threat to neighboring states: “By 1998 Iraq's biological and missile plants were destroyed. In terms of the intent of the UN Security Council resolutions, Iraq had been disarmed. The world is blind to this reality. Even though Iraq has been disarmed, sanctions will remain until Hussein is gone.”

--Scott Ritter, 2000

[sandnsea]

96. "Iraq today is not disarmed"

Read his testimony.

"Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace."

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

[mike_c]

103. some people just won't let go of that WMD delusion....

There were no WMDs. There just weren't, not after the early nineties. They're not lurking out there in the desert somewhere. Saddam Hussein told the truth when he said they'd all been destroyed by the mid-nineties. No amount of historical ambiguity will change that. Anyone who said they existed after 1998 was simply wrong, and evidence cited in favor of their existence was tenuous and mostly trumped up to justify the continued sanctions, and later, a criminal war. The best that congress can plead in its defense is ignorance and stupidity. No amount of spinning can make it otherwise.

My personal opinion is that many of them were political opportunists whose motives went WAY beyond ignorance, but who miscalculated the political calculus very badly indeed. I include John Kerry and John Edwards in that cohort. I think you would very much like that to be wrong, but nothing you've said here has convinced me otherwise. Nor have subsequent events. If Kerry was simply misled, or if he was just uninformed, why has he never repudiated his IWR vote? If he was wrong, why can't he admit it? I think the answer is that he's still throwing the political bones, and still trying to play that bankrupt opportunity for what little bit of worth it has left.

[sandnsea]

104. Tell it to Scott Ritter

Those are HIS words. HE was there. If HE didn't even say Iraq was disarmed, in 1998, who's word am I supposed to take? It isn't spin, it's congressional testimony. Deal with it.

[mike_c]

110. good lord, Ritter's testimony was in support of FINISHING...

...the inspections, which the Clinton administration had suspended. This is exactly what he was talking about later when he said that "gaps" remained in the accounting, and that closing those gaps would allow UNSCOM to report that Iraq was "quantitatively disarmed" as well as "qualitatively disarmed." Don't just cherry pick his statements-- read what he said and then consider that in light of his subsequent statements, like the ones I quoted above. Clinton had forced the withdrawal of the inspection teams and Ritter's testimony was that their job was still not finished-- it would not be finished until the chief inspector reported to the U.N. that Iraq had complied with the disarmament mandate, and Clinton's forced closure of the inspections program prevented that certification.

Using an argument like that is like quoting Urban VIII's criticisms of Galileo-- yes, he said them, but not only were they wrong, events have made it abundantly clear to everyone that they were wrong.

[sandnsea]

112. Yeah, because "Iraq today is not disarmed"

Good grief. There's no cherry picking about it. Finish the inspections, because "Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace." That's as clear as it gets. That's what Ritter thought in 1998, BEFORE the bombings.

[peacetalksforall]

22. I have serious doubts about our leaders.

I would like to see the timeline to determine if Kerry, Clinton, Shirmer etc. had time to raise a public fuss. And if they did, why don't I remember it? If Bush and the regime that props him up broke a trust - why didn't they cry out on our behalf since we knew what was going down. The internet was loaded with people who were unraveling the deception for each other. If we knew, why couldn't they know? That question has never been answered to my satisfaction. And seeing it on a timeline of who said what and when would help me find forgiveness.

I say those Congresspeople did not want to rock the votes - they catered to the fearful, war-favoring voters.

If the regime broke a trust, where was the fuss? Why didn't the Senators say what we were saying? Why did they sound just like the Republicans?

If they broke a trust - why did/does Leiberman and some of the other Senators bow in fealty to the regime on every issue in addition to the call for war.

Who exactly has taken the regime to task in the manner of Conyers on other issues? Why do I feel that there is no fire there. Perhaps it is because I am so turned off that I turn them (the Senators) off.

Yes, I was out there for Kerry and Edwards at election time. BUT - all of the Senate is still operating as if it was the 1950's through the 1990's - when diplomacy and compromise was expected and worked. We are recently hearing many stories of how Lott was always communicating with Clinton and his staff. Times have changed and our leaders are acting like it hasn't. A war is a war whether declared judicioulsy or not, whether on foreigners or not, whether on their own citizens or not.

Why should we be supportive of their non-actions about the killing? Why is it taking our Senators so long to address the division in this country, the constant tornadoes of lies and deception? They are way too diplomatic for my sense of urgency. The country is going down the DRAIN and they are all still talking PORK. PORK PORK PORK.

They are all too 'in' with lobbyists for my comfort. PORK PORK PORK

[1932]

24. Only two Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

One or both lost their next election for reasons not directly connected to that vote (but perhaps indirectly connected).

Many of the Senators who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution later were embraced as anti-war democrats.

Whether someone voted yes or no on a war resolution doesn't make them pro-war or anti-war. There is so much more to the issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. To Morse and Gruening's everlasting credit. True statesmen.

While the rest of the senate played politics with lives. Just as the likes of Kerry, Lieberman, Clinton, Edwards, et al, did.

[1932]

38. I think that greatly oversimplifies reality.

Ultimately, it's the President who is responsible for what he does with the resolution, and people have many reasons for voting yes or no that don't conveniently fit into a black/white analysis of whether they're decent people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. "Decent" people don't vote to have other people killed.

The German industrialists backed Hitler's bid for power for diverse reasons. That doesn't let them off the hook for what he later did with the power that they gave him or make them "decent" people.

Worse for the collaborationist Demcrats. Bush made no secret of his plans and only the willfully ignorant or terminally stupid didn't see what they were.

I don't believe that Kerry and the rest are either ignorant or stupid. They knew what was going on and went along with it. I believe for purely political reasons.

I submit as evidence the 23 senators who voted against the war.

[1932]

44. William Fulbright was a decent man.

And many senators negotiated for something that was worded much less broadly than what the WH wanted and voted for that.

[mattclearing]

29. Does anyone doubt that Kerry voted against his conscience because of...

...his impending presidential run?

I thought this was pretty obvious.

He didn't want to be seen as weak on national security, and felt he had to prove himself.

He knew as well as anyone that Iraq wasn't a threat.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[mattclearing]

36. Thanks.

I just want to make sure everyone recognizes that John Kerry started from a truth deficit, which he didn't expect anyone (Dean) to call him on.

It almost sunk him in the primaries, and ultimately put him in a terrible position from which to attack Bush's policies.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

35. There was story going around that some people from the DNC

or DLC said to Kerry that if wanted to run in 2004 that it would be well adviced 'for his political future' to vote for the IWR. I heard they said the same thing to Edwards.

God I hated the DLC/DNC!!

[mattclearing]

39. Absolutely.

These people knew that Bush would use this vote to tear apart any carefully parsed critique of the war policy. "Then why did you vote for it?"

In retrospect, it's almost as if Kerry and Edwards were set up to take a dive...the DLC sets them up and Bush knocks them down, using the dirt that the DLC made them carry.

[TankLV]

62. Finnaly! Nice to have somebody remember what actually was

transpiring at the time instead of revisionist history.

[sandnsea]

82. "story going around"

Yeah, that's what I base my opinions on, "stories going around". :eyes:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

84. What I said was more of a defense than anything else! Pluuuze!

But if you think he voted for it on his own that's ok.

[KnowerOfLogic]

56. That seems to be the most likely reason. Pretty disgraceful. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Kerry voted for, and still supports the war, for his political ambitions.

Not because he was "deceived" or "betrayed" or because he's an ignorant fool.

He has blood on his hands. Innocent Iraqi blood and the blood of the GI's sent there to kill and die.

He is worthy only of contempt and disgust.

[1932]

46. If your political ambition is to win an election so that you can stop wars

of imperialism, I would have a hard time faulting you.

I believe that Kerry voted for the IWR in way that reflected what the informed American public believed (ie, that the threat of force was an appropriate incentive to Sadaam Hussein so that he would comply with UN investigators and so we could avoid war).

I believe that Bush engaged in an imperial war that an informed American public would not agree with, and apparently is not agreeing with now as they become more informed. I do not blame Kerry for Bush's actions. The buck stops with the president.

[TayTay]

51. No he doesn't

Bush does. Kerry voted to give the authority to get the inspectors in. I don't buy your argument at all.

You want to assign blame. Put it on the people who actually planned this war, executed it and fucked it up royally.

The 'moral equivalency' argument is a phony distraction from placing the blame where it belongs: on the Rethugs and on their crown prince in the White House.

It also weasels out on the idea that any change is possible. It whispers that no matter who is elected, Dean, Kerry, Feingold, Attila the Hun, there is no change possible. It is a wimp-out argument and is moreally indefensible.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Snotcicles]

37. Now that momentum is turning, they may stand a snowballs

chance on getting a hearing. I think you only get one shot at it, so until you have the masses behind you may be premature.

[dogday]

42. Even Dean changed his stance

I said ah shit when that happened because that was what attracted me to Dean, he stood up and spoke his mind and said the war was wrong.

No one is standing up and saying let's stop this madness. Does any of them step to the beat of a different drummer, instead of following the leader? No.

Is this really the type of person we want to represent us? Not really.

Kerry of all people should understand this. Honestly he should understand this movement. I am disappointed in that...

[LSK]

43. Dean has repeatly said it was a grave mistake to invade

What he is saying recently thou is that now that we are there, we have an obligation to "fix" our mistake by staying. Although he might be backing off that now by saying that Bush broke it, he should fix it.

[dogday]

47. I see this war as an endless battle going

on for years and years. We will end up like Russia, broke and losing. To save lives and money, we need to stop now or we will be stagnate in a mess of insurgency and/or a civil war.

[Dr Fate]

45. Swingvoters dont buy it. Nuance did not work in '04- it wont work now.

"yay" or "nay" is all swing voters and non-political types understand.

Kerry voted "yes"- he should have voted "no." Period.

Thats not to say Kerry is not a viable candidate for '08- it just means that the pro-Iraq War DEMS need to come clean with the base on this.

If they want to go on TV and say "I would not have voted this way if I had known about things like the DSM and the forged nigerian documents..."- I'm cool with that too- but they cant even do that.

[Rhiannon12866]

48. I believe you. Kerry's vote was totally misrepresented by the media.

John Kerry did not vote for the war! He voted to give the president the authority to use force so he could take it to the U.N., so he could bring the inspectors back in and avoid a war!!!:grr:

This was what Bush* said to Congress and to the American people at the time! But he was lying!!! Again... He pulled the inspectors out before they could finish their job and launched his preemptive strike. We all know that now and that this was his intention all all along, thanks to the Downing Street Memos of 2002.:mad:

Why isn't the media emphasizing this?! Why aren't our members of Congress who were duped shouting this from the rooftops?! He lied to them all and they bought it. And it wasn't only Kerry. Of our candidates, Gephardt and Edwards were duped, as well. Only Lieberman supported the war...:-(

Of our candidates from Congress, only Kucinich and Graham voted against Bush* and IWR and spoke out against it. And they were called unpatriotic!:grr:

[TankLV]

63. Nuance is lost on people.

I can't disagree with what you said.

[mike_c]

69. so all those other dems who voted "no" on the IWR...

...were simply trying to deny the president authority to bring in the weapons inspectors and avoid a war? Oh, the logic gets twisted around here sometimes! BTW, Iraq agreed to resumption of weapons inspections-- FULL and UNCONDITIONAL inspections-- BEFORE the IWR vote. Even that twisted bit of logic was unnecessary.

It was a vote to have a patriotic little war of aggression against a nearly defenseless country that happens to be sitting in a strategic location atop a large pool of the resource that America is most addicted to. Kerry, Edwards, and the others who voted in favor of the IWR endorsed the trashing of one of the most important principles of international law since WWII. See my sig line....

[sandnsea]

115. Blix and Baradei wanted a resolution

Blix was negotiating and decided he supported the new resolution. On Oct 7, the details for the inspectors weren't complete, and the inspections were supposed to start on the 19th. What people say in a two second sound byte isn't the same as what goes on in negotiations, just like Woolsey saying she is calling for withdrawal when her resolution does nothing of the sort. If you care to have the truth, you've got to look past those two second sound bytes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021007-usia03.htm

[KnowerOfLogic]

54. Give it up. Everybody knew IWR was a vote for war. Everyone knew

that once bush got congressional approval the war was an inevitability, and it didn't matter what sadaam did. For the naive amongst us, all kerry's and other pro-war dems' talk at the time about "last resort," "put pressure on sadaam," "show unity," "make war less likely," etc. was nothing more than ass-covering, to be fallen back on in times just such as these.

[mike_c]

72. the lamest part of that argument...

...is the bit about the need to "put pressure on Saddam." Saddam Hussein had already complied with the U.N. mandate to disarm and dismantle his WMD development programs long before GWB was even "elected." The general consensus now is that he had done so by the mid-nineties, nearly a decade before the IWR. Three U.S. administrations-- Poppy 41, Clinton, and Shrubya 43 went to enormous lengths to conceal this from the U.S. in particular and from the rest of the world to whatever extent possible, by manipulating diplomacy, intelligence, and public perception, and by maintaining a shadow air campaign against Iraq in parallel with the economic sanctions program that made it difficult to regard Iraq as anything but "our enemy."

[TankLV]

57. Oh we believe you.

But since is wasn't a "last resort" and bunkerboy kicked the inspectors out, and all the reasons for it were only in the repukes' imaginations, then why are they not calling for bunkerboy's head on a platter instead of still complimenting him?

Why do they refuse to call bunkerboy a LIAR?

[FlemingsGhost]

59. "You won't get pregnant ... I swear."

Who, in their right mind, trusts the word of a Bush? Apparently, thirty year veterans of the Beltway.

Yeah ... right.

[never_get_over_it]

64. I admint I have not read this whole thread

and that is because I don't want my head to pop off reading the excuses why John Kerry did the wrong thing....that's what we do in this county - we don't take responsibility we make excuses.

In the Dead Wrong program they reported on a special report that is normally asked for by the executive branch and I'm sorry I can't remember the name of it - the Bush admin didn't call for this report but Congress did. This report stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat - if you heard Dick Durbin on that program he said he was hearing one thing in the meetings and a totally different interpretation in the media and he stated that he was bound by law not to question this - but guess what Durbin voted NO NO NO on the IWR he was smart enough to know that these people were lying sacks of shit.

The reason John Kerry voted YES YES YES on IWR the ONLY reason - not because they lied to him, not because he was too stupid to know they were lying to him but BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. The man cared more about his political ambition than the lives of the American military or the innocent Iraqis - the blood of all those killed are on his hands, Hillary's hands and all the other spineless useless Dems who voted YES - along with all the repunks that support these murdering bastards in this administration

And you know why Kerry didn't fight the election fraud - because he wants to run for President in '08. I say FUCK YOU JOHN KERRY you got one vote out of me (unless of course here in FL they counted it for Bush) but you will NEVER get another one.....bye bye John Kerry and Hillary and all you other weak kneed freak Democrats.

There I feel better had to get it off my chest.

[FlemingsGhost]

66. Amen. DLC Democrats get nothing from me. (n/t)

Flem.

[TankLV]

74. They did it because they thought it would give them "cover" and nutralize

any attackes on their "patriotism" and willingness to look strong on defense.

I remember all the triangulation.

And all the DLC "advice" really worked - for the "swiftboaters"

[lateo]

75. "At this point, every member of Congress was lied to about the need to go

And shouldn't we hope that our leaders would KNOW that a BUSH would lie to get into a war?

[Individualist]

95. Especially since Bloody George's character was well known

long before he was selected by the Supreme Court.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

87. Problem is, long AFTER the IWR vote, Kerry has never stated that

invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, that it was WRONG. Something that seems apparent to a large majority of Americans and nearly everyone on DU now.

I think it's important that prominent Democrats say this, but they are not.

[sandnsea]

97. "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time"

Yes, he has.

[mike_c]

111. Oh please....

Kerry has NEVER repudiated his IWR vote, and he has said that even knowing what he knows today, that there are no WMDs and that Iraq was not connected to 9/11 or international terrorism, he would still vote in favor of the IWR. At least be honest about that, for christ's sake. He's also spun his reasons and ultimately said that he supported the IWR only to give Bush the authority to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. disarmament mandate, which sounds cool to those who don't know that Hussein had already complied, already agreed to unconditional inspections, and already supplied the documents that the U.N. needed to certify Iraq's compliance. It was all a sham, and Kerry participated in it.

[sandnsea]

114. why I don't bother with links

Some people obviously aren't interested in reading them. Once again, the VOTE isn't the WAR. Sorry it's too complicated for you, it isn't for most of America. It's also why most people don't support immediate withdrawal, they can differentiate the crap that got us into Iraq with the possibility to do good. Remote possibility, at this point, but possibility all the same.

[TayTay]

116. He did here. On video.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/kerryletterman.h...

EDIT: Whoa - check out the Iraq comments about mid-way through. Damn, was he ever right!

Letterman: "If you had been elected President in 2000, would we be in Iraq right now?"
JK: "No. Well..."
Letterman: "If you had the same intelligence Bush had...Would we be in IRaq now?"
JK: "If we had the same intelligence that President Bush had... We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, we know there was no connection to Al Qaeda, we know there was no imminent threat, and under those circumstances I would not have taken America to war." 9/25/04 David Letterman Show.

[Senator Lamb]

88. sorry but if this was Kerry's view it made no sense

did anyone really think Bush would just be happy with weapons inspectors? they knew what they were getting into. everyone knew who was in Bush's administration and their "vision" for the middle east; the domino affect they wanted to set off. Bush and his administration wanted this war and needed to find reasons to do it.

the democrats in the middle between Lieberman and Finegold who were "last resort UN approved pro-war" like Kerry and Edwards should have also realized that if Saddam started to actually cooperate (which he kinda did), it would only strengthen Saddam's hand, Russia and France would then begin to discuss cancelling the sanctions , making us look very foolish with Saddam being more powerful then he was after we started to threaten force. Do you think Cheney and the neocons would have settled for a strengthed saddam? sorry but lests get to the real reason for this pro IWR.

it was not long after 9/11, the country was at the time behind Bush, this neo-patriotism was strong, the american people wanted to kick ass, and frankly Democrats were afraid of making the same mistake during the Gulf War and risk being labeled weak on defense, anti-american.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. While I am looking for answers myself

I think it's also fair to point out that they had to get re-elected as well and if they voted against it the republicans would've said they were letting the "terrorist's" win and all that. It would've been, I think, a lose-lose situation. I think that's why Kerry did the voting "no" for the funding. That was the only other chance he could've had to vote against the war. Why he did that? :shrug: I can't read minds. But only thing I can think of. All we can do now is win back the House and Senate (hopefully) next year and get justice and things on the right track in our country.

[mike_c]

93. many DID vote against it, and they've NEVER suffered any...

...political consequences for doing so. Sorry, the facts simply do not support this rationalization.

[Orsino]

101. Because there was no danger of their stopping...

...the juggernaut. The hawks never had to waste any energy trying for unanimity. If the vote had been anywhere near close, there would have been a nasty fight.

As it was, most of our "representatives" let us down, voting to allow our troops to be sent to kill and die for what they knew was horseshit. Oh, sure, they can wring their hands now and whine that they were lied to, but they cannot seriously deny their complicity. They participated freely; the neocon hawks were just a little bit more evil.

[mike_c]

106. I agree with you, but the cravenness just buggers the mind....

I mean, they voted to authorize U.S. entry into a criminal war of aggression against a weak nation, the rough equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Poland, a violation of international law that utterly repudiated the principles that America stood for, in order to avoid the possibility of name calling on the floor of the senate. I expect better from my leaders.

[Orsino]

117. Wellllllll...*very* rough equivalent...

...If Poland had been ruled by a murderous dictator reviled by all its neighbors. But, yeah, the similarities are too apparent for comfort.

[MadHound]

118. Oh please, give me a break, and stop rehashing old BS

Let's see here, millions of people, both here on this board, and around the country realized that the IWR was a blank check for Bushco to go to war whenever he wanted. Are you saying that Kerry didn't realize that?

Millions and millions of people around the world realized that the IWR was a blank check for Bushco to go to war, and were out in the streets protesting it, hoping to sway opinion. Are you saying that Kerry didn't realize that?

Millions of people here in America were out in the streets protesting against the IWR, for they realized that the IWR gave Bushco a blank check to go to war whenever he felt like it. Are you saying that Kerry didn't realize that?

Millions of people were contacting their Senators and Reprasenatives saying they were against the IWR, for they realized that the IWR was giving a blank check to Bushco to go to war whenever he wished. Are you saying that Kerry didn't realize this? By the by, messages by phone, fax, email and snail mail were running 268-1 against the IWR, yet Kerry voted for it anyway. How about Kerry doing his goddamn job, his most important job and represent the will of his constituents rather than the will of his corporate masters.

Dozens upon dozens of pundits, reporters, newspeople, commentators and various other media folk realized that the IWR gave Bushco the ability to go to war whenever the hell he wanted to. Are you saying that Kerry didn't recognize this?

A relative handful of Kerry's colleagues and peers in both the House and Senate realized that the IWR gave Bushco a blank check to go to war at any time, and they were speaking out against it. Are you saying that Kerry didn't realize this?

Sorry pal, but your justification just doesn't fly. Either Kerry was one of the dumbest, most ill-informed Senator up on the hill, or that his vote was cast as directed by his corporate masters, for war and more war to enrich their coffers and the expense of innocent blood. Kerry is not a dumb or ill informed man. But like many of our so called reps, his allegiance isn't to the people who voted him into office, but to the corporate masters who put him there. Welcome to the two party/same corporate master system of government, where who you voted for doesn't count for as much as who the corporations paid to put into office.

So please, please, put this tired old arguement away, it has been beaten into the ground. Despite the unpleasantness of it all, stop trying to rationalize this shit away. Face the fact that virtually all of our reps in both the House and the Senate, including Kerry, sold us out. Rather than doing their primary job, representing the collective will of their constituents, they decided instead to represent the will of their corporate masters, and they let loose the dogs of war. They weren't fooled, they didn't have the wool pulled over their eyes, in fact it wouldn't suprise me if there was a pool amongst some of them as to how soon after the IWR was passed would Bush go to war. They knew exactly what they were doing, and the bloody consequences of their choice, yet they did it anyway, and for that they cannot be forgiven, even that corporate whore Kerry.

[robcon]

119. Thank you MadHound

This is the clearest statement of the meaning of the IWR I've read.

Those who were against the war voted against this resolution - like Byrd, Durbin, Wellstone, Dayton, Murray, Chafee, Boxer, etc.