An honest (I swear) question for Kerry supporters re: BFEE

[knowledgeispower]

A lot of Kerry suporters here seem convinced that he is the man to take on the BFEE. Some say that he "knows their secrets," others say that he has "assembled a team" to out the BFEE's evil ways. I want to believe it, I really do. And if I did, Kerry would be my choice hands down.

But if Kerry is THE GUY to TAKE DOWN THE BFEE, why in the hell did he vote for the IWR? That was so obviously yet another evil BFEE scheme. If ever Kerry had the chance to expose them for what they were, or at least stand up in principle against them, that was it. Yet Kerry voted for it.

Why?

That is all I want to know. I don't care that other candidates voted for the IWR, I don't care that Dean would have voted for it if he actually had been forced to make the decision, and I don't care about Kerry's record on everything else (which I admit is good). Just answer me this one question: WHY DID HE VOTE FOR THE IWR? How does this accomplish his goal of outing the BFEE?

Because it seems to me that if Kerry knows all about the BFEE, he is complicit in it. Why else would he vote for one of their ventures?

[La_Serpiente]

1. That's the one that I have been wondering about as well

I mean, I looked through Kerry's book to see his explanation and he didn't really touch on it. He hasn't really touched upon it on his website as well.

I am undecided right now and I am giving Kerry the chance to explain his posistion. As an undecided voter, I can understand if he said that he believed that Iraq had WMD. But I haven't really heard him come out and say that.

I am just as clueless as you.

[knowledgeispower]

5. I don't think there is a good excuse

I think Kerry, Edwards, Leiberman, and Gephardt all did it because they believed it would be damaging politically to do otherwise. They bought into the "George W. is invincible" bullshit that was circulating through the country at the time. They thought that a vote against the IWR would open the door for them to be painted as "soft on defense," "anti-American," or some other similar right wing bullshit.

I can understand this, if it is the case. But it also shows me that they are both stupid (because they are now getting killed FOR voting for the IWR) and also do not have what it takes to back up their convictions (if they were indeed against the IWR in spirit).

[DrFunkenstein]

11. When Has Kerry Not Backed Up His Conviction?

He agreed with Clinton's 1998 sentiment:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/12/17/loc_clintons_statement.html

But he argued for doing things right. If you look at Kerry's plan from the floor speech, you would see that this is a man that would have handled this situation right. Kerry never criticizes Bush without offering a detailed alternative.

[GreenArrow]

12. you're too kind

I think they voted for it because they believed it was the right thing for the country to do, just done the wrong way. US policy in the ME has always dictated that we control the resources of that area. I don't buy for a second that they were fooled or decieved.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Iraq= the right thing done wrong

well said.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. VERY Nicely Put

Can I use that?

[Eloriel]

56. Well, see? There you go. That's the whole problem w/Kerry in a

nutshell:

Iraq= the right thing done wrong

It demonstrably was NOT the right thing to do: invade a sovereign nation that many of us knew, as millions of others in the US and around the world KNEW, was absolutely no threat to us.

"We're Americans. We don't shoot first."

Unless, of course, it's politically expedient to back a sociopathic would-be dictator intent on Empire.

Eloriel

[knowledgeispower]

60. As always, you really summed it up!

You just can't rationalize a "yes" vote for the IWR

[sangh0]

65. Can you rationalize breaking CFR?

I bet you can

[knowledgeispower]

71. What an interesting point

I don't really see the similarity though. Dean opting out of public financing (something I do vehemently support) is not going to result in the deaths of countless innocent people. So I think abandoning my ideal there in the interest of beating Bush is okay.

But condoning the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians just to beat Bush? Not good in my book.

They are two very different situations.

[sangh0]

74. You don't know what you're talking about

I just got done responding to a post where you question how many people were killed in Iran-Contra. Since the answer, which you seem ignorant of, is "thousands" I feel I must question your ability to understand the impact of these issues.

CFR, by eliminating the role moneyed interests play, will free up money for social services (as opposed to tax cuts). Being an employee of an organization that performs said social work, I can confidently say that it save thousands of lives.

But condoning the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians just to beat Bush? Not good in my book.

And again you demonstrate your inability to judge the impact of these decision. "Hundreds of thousands" did not die in Iraq. Get a grip

[sangh0]

66. Breaking CFR is "the right thing, done wrong"

Defeating Bush* is the "right thing" but maybe breaking CFR is the wrong way to do it, even if abandoning the limits is the "politically expedient" thing to do.

[GreenArrow]

94. Just for the sake of clarity

I don't personally believe that attacking Iraq was the right thing, but I think those that voted for it did. It was defintely done wrong--false premise, false conclusion.

[knowledgeispower]

20. I like the way you think

Unfortunately, I think you are right. I think it was cold hard calculaion all the well, both for political interests and national interests.

The point I was trying to make, though, was that it *wasn't* the choice of a man itching to out the BFEE, as some of his supporters have claimed he is.

[GreenArrow]

27. exactly

Kerry is not in fundamental disagreement with what is going on in Iraq, only with the way it was prosecuted. The arrogance of the Bushugh team is breathtaking. Kerry was surely distressed by that arrogance, but I have no doubt that he was fully aware that the whole fiasco was predicated on false information, and outright lies.

[knowledgeispower]

30. Yeah, Bush's arrogance was just bad foreign policy

Kerry wanted the United Nations to shield U.S. interests in the matter. In the end, they both would have meant largely the same thing for the Iraqi's.

[jpgray]

2. The supporters are to blame for this fairy story

"Just vote for my guy and his magic knowledge will lock everyone up tight!"

Doubtless if Kerry did have information, he either won't or can't use it. Leave it at that. Kerry shouldn't need to be made into the "I got the goods" tooth fairy to get votes--he's a good candidate.

That there are several threads daily on this "why doesn't Kerry expose Bush" is something that makes little sense to me. Does Kerry claim to have this information? No.

If these stories are true, given the past treatment of officials convicted with overwhelming evidence of corruption, they'll just reappear without a sound from anyone with seats in the next Republican administration.

[knowledgeispower]

3. I agree about Kerry the candidate

The only reason I posted this was because some of Kerry's supporters seem to believe he is some kind of BFEE-exposing Golden Boy. That just doesn't wash with the IWR vote, which is my whole point.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Who Are These Supporters?

I don't know anyone who says vote for Kerry because he has the magic Skull & Bones code. In fact, I think most of that conspiracy stuff is pretty silly - although the revolving door between the government and the arms industry and energy industry is pretty well-documented.

[knowledgeispower]

10. Check out this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=676146&mesg_id=676146

These supporters exist.

I don't think that the BFEE is silly or conspiratorial, I think it is in fact real and seeks to destroy the United States for the business interests of a few. Having said that, I just don't buy that Kerry is the guy that will out the BFEE to the masses. If anyone would have, it was Wellstone, and...well you know.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. I Disagree With Parts Of That Argument

I don't buy that Bush wanted 9/11 - I think he was a knucklehead that dropped the ball.

I don't think there is a Bush family interest in the Bin Laden family. I believe that many of that family are "legitimate" energy tycoons that are tied up with the real energy needs of this country.

I agree with almost everything else. I also believe that Kerry has a working knowledge of alot of these relationships - given his position, he has little choice.

"I think it is in fact real and seeks to destroy the United States for the business interests of a few."

I don't think they "seek" to destroy America, but that they are more interested in their own interests even when it runs against US interests. I also think that our energy needs are far more complex than people are willing to admit.

"Having said that, I just don't buy that Kerry is the guy that will out the BFEE to the masses. If anyone would have, it was Wellstone, and...well you know."

I don't think Sen. Wellstone was "knocked off" anymore than Sen. Heinz was - or JFK Jr (or Otis Redding). These people fly alot in small planes, and have a much greater chance of such accidents occuring.

[knowledgeispower]

29. The Bush admin will do just about anything for money & power

Well I personally subscribe to the LIHOP theory, but maybe I do overestimate what lengths the Bush's would go to further their agenda. However, when you realize that most of the Bush Admin.'s agenda (Afghanistan war, Iraq War, Patriot Act, tax cuts, etc.) followed and was made possible by 9/11, it seems that Bush is either "the luckiest nut in the world" (wink-wink if you've seen the doc.) or he saw an opportunity and seized on it.

But--whether it was LIHOP or incompentence aside--I think the causing of, or manipulation of, 9/11 just goes to show how utterly depraved the Bush Administration is. They will go to any lengths to serve their own interests, and I think that includes a global plan for oligarchs to rule, through the economy of course, over ALL of the world--the United States included. Remember, it is a global age.

You should check out this article on the issue, having to do with the recent arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian oil tycoon:

http://www.nypress.com/16/45/news&columns/cage.cfm

Here is an excerpt from the article, which as a whole explains the workings of what is essentially a globalized mafia:

The basic story is that the U.S., in conjunction with the Yeltsin administration, decided to create a super-wealthy class of oligarchs who would ruthlessly defend their assets against any attempt to renationalize the economy. In return—and this is the key point—they were to support, financially, the ruling, Western-friendly "democratic" government. It is through such machinations that we were able to bring about a compliant Russian state, wholly dependent on corporate support, that would answer the bell whenever we needed something ugly out of them—for instance their assistance in our bombing of their traditional allies, the Serbs.

<snip>

Many of us who spent the 90s in Russia became aware over time that the aim of the United States was to create a rump state that would allow economic interests to strip assets at will. The population in this scheme was to be good for consuming foreign goods produced abroad with Russia’s own cheaply sold raw materials. The aim was a castrated state, anarchy, a vast, confused territory of captive consumers, cheap labor and unguarded oil and aluminum.

Some of us who came home after seeing this began to realize that the same process is underway in the United States: the erosion of the tax base, the gradual appropriation of the tools of government by economic interests, a massive, disorganized population useless to everybody except as shoppers. That is their revolution: smashing states everywhere and creating a scattered global nation of villas and tax shelters, as inaccessible as Olympus, forbidding entry even to mighty dictators.


It's all just business.

[Padraig18]

87. OMG--- stop the presses!

I actually agree with the good DrF about something! Mark the calendar--- Nov. 10th, 2003, 4:11 p.m., CST. *grin*

[DrFunkenstein]

96. Woo Hoo!!!

:toast:

[JNelson6563]

13. Um, I saw no mention of skull & bones

But it's true that some Kery supporters do assert he is the guy to bringdown the BFEE and he'll be doing that as soon as he gets in office. You will find some of that mindset right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=676146&mesg_id=676146

Julie

[knowledgeispower]

22. Right, I didn't mean to imply that they had said that

I misunderstood what kind of proof was being asked. I supplied proof that some think he is the man to bring down the BFEE, not meaning to imply that the same supporters had brought up the Skull & Bones stuff.

[JNelson6563]

34. Oh, I know that!

I didn't direct that at you but at the next poster becasue they seemed to think that was what folks were saying. Fortunately there was a thread alive and kicking that demostrated indeed some do think Kerry has a magical answer to bring the BFEE down.

Compliance musta been part of the secret plan. ;-)

Julie

[knowledgeispower]

41. Heh heh

Yeah I am sure Kerry was trying to get into the BFEE's good graces so he could find out even more information to bring them down with! ;)

[jpgray]

8. You're right, it doesn't

And like many of Kerry's inconsistencies, the discrepancy isn't between his own statements, but the conflicting spin on some of those statements. Kerry wasn't the only one investigating Iran/Contra and BCCI--if any information does exist, those who have it either can't or won't put it out. Dangling it out there to get votes is something that would make me take mine away. My thoughts are (as they were with Graham): if you know something, for God's sake there couldn't be a better time to get it out there than right now.

Incidentally, my own guess is that Kerry's IWR vote was politically motivated, given the upcoming election.

[knowledgeispower]

17. My thoughts exactly

Although I don't think Kerry personally has "dangled" the promise of proof out before voters. I think it is some of his supporters who have been discouraged by a stumbling campaign who are doing that for him.

And yeah, I think Kerry's vote was in the interests of political expediency as well.

[jpgray]

21. Right, Kerry hasn't dangled that promise at all

And if he had, I wouldn't support him. But the way some people talk, it sounds like he's promised convictions all around--GWB and all on a platter.

[blm]

37. Sorry, but when you know Kerry's background

and his dogged pursuits of BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning, his 07 book on the international funding of terrorism, his noting that 9-11 was predicted in his BCCI calculations, and the fact that his team has a few people who are DIRECTLY RELATED to the 9-11 terrorism story - Gary Hart, and the cooked intelligence story - Rand Beers and Joe Wilson, it's easy to figure where he's going with this.

Do you think Wilson has no plans to go further? Do you not agree that there were people behind the scenes that were in Wilson's corner BEFORE he wrote his op ed piece implicating Cheney?

[jpgray]

42. I've read the BCCI/Contra reports

What they mention of Bush Sr. is minimal to the point of being nonexistent. Kerry's questioning helped lead to Abrams' conviction, and where is he now? How about Poindexter? If Kerry has the information, I wouldn't be sanguine about his ability to do anything lasting with it, and given those past experiences I doubt he would be either. But I would also say the best time to release this information, if it exists, is right now.

Rand Beers came off very well on Nightline, and doubtless has information that is embarrassing to Bush regarding the relative security of the nation. But there is plenty of that information floating around, and it doesn't get a speck of coverage. Ditto for the Wilson probe. Like I said, I'm not sanguine about that information doing a whole lot even if it exists, and I would imagine Kerry wouldn't be either. If he's waiting until the media power of the presidency is his, fine, but until that time I'm glad he isn't dangling it out there to entice voters.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Kerry Is Unlike The Rose Gardeners

He did not vote out of political calculation. He worked hard to get Biden-Lugar put through, but had the rug pulled under by Rose Gardeners like Gep and Lieb. Kerry was confronted with two choices that did not represent his position, and he made the vote he felt was more responsible for America's long-term (not imminent!) security.

The Rose Gardeners wanted the war off the table before 2002 elections. Kerry did not.

When a questioner said Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House, Gephardt replied that the president had made it clear he would not accept a "two-step" process that required him to come back to Congress for authorization of force.

"I was impressed with the administration argument" that a definitive resolution from Congress was needed before Bush could seek U.N. Security Council support, Gephardt said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm

Kerry has not deviated his position one iota, despite a (IMO) poor choice of vote. Here is Kerry in 1997 saying the same thing:

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97)

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

The IWR was the most difficult vote of his entire career, and his 50-minute floor speech was evidence of a man agonized by the two choices before him.

[knowledgeispower]

7. Thanks for the info

But it still comes up looking bad for Kerry. So he voted for the resolution because he HONESTLY believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States? If so, he is an idiot, and I am not voting for an idiot.

[blm]

16. Kerry held the hearings in 98 where Scott Ritter TOLD them there were

still WMDs in Iraq.

Kerry has always said that the problem with Saddam was his penchant for miscalculation. With a growing fundamentalist movement in that region that was targeting Hussein for overthrow, they really couldn't afford to leave Hussein in power for long.

Think of Bin Laden in Hussein's place as the head of Iraq. And many, including Clinton, believed there were still many weapons there. Heck, the Iraqgate investigation showed that Bush1 supplied Saddam with the tons of chem and bio weapons. Did anyone ever dispute those findings at that time?

[knowledgeispower]

18. So why doesn't Kerry say this?

I have never heard him say (and I'm not talking about decoding his words) that he voted for the IWR because he thought that there was a threat of Muslim fundamentalists overthrowing Saddam. If he had said that, I might even think to myself "gosh, I can sort of see where he is coming from." But he hasn't.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Kerry In 2001 On Regime Change And Removing Sanctions

Nearly ten years after the United States and a coalition of allies defeated Saddam Hussein, the international sanctions regime against Iraq has clearly failed to force a change in leadership in Baghdad and has lost meaningful support in the world community as a means of eliminating his weapons programs.

Each newspaper story about commercial flights from Moscow or Paris into Baghdad International Airport further discredits the sanctions regime. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq continue to suffer terribly, as Saddam profits from the sanctions, using them as a tool for maintaining his reign of terror.

The oil-for-food program has improved access to food and medical supplies in Iraq, especially in the northern territories not under Saddam’s control, but humanitarian conditions in Iraq remain bleak.

In Congress, concern that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD programs is bipartisan. Since the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq two years ago, however, little serious attention has been paid—either by the Congress or the White House—to addressing Iraq’s growing threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region.

What little debate there might have been over the UN’s attempt to lift economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for a resumption of inspections evaporated as it became clear that Saddam would not consider allowing UN inspectors to return.
In the absence of international inspections, it is vital that tight sanctions remain in place on exports of military goods and dual-use technologies to contain Iraq’s ability to threaten its neighbors.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is preparing to reinvigorate the international sanctions regime. Such an effort is not only warranted, but long overdue. Rebuilding the coalition to hold Saddam accountable to international law, however, will not be easy.

Given the de facto evisceration of the UN sanctions regime, the United States may have to find another way to ensure that goods and technology meant for Iraq’s weapons programs do not find their way to Baghdad.

We should be willing to consider adjusting the current economic sanctions, as long as such a change is accompanied by renewed commitments from U.S. allies and others to enforce the sanctions on military and dual-use exports to Iraq.

http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.html

[knowledgeispower]

40. Some of this is flat out wrong

What little debate there might have been over the UN’s attempt to lift economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for a resumption of inspections evaporated as it became clear that Saddam would not consider allowing UN inspectors to return.

I am sure Senator Kerry knows full well that the reason why inspectors had to *return* in the first place was due to the Desert Fox operation of '98. Clinton pulled out the inspectors because they were going to bomb the hell out of Iraq. Then when the bombing was over Hussein would not let them back in because they believed the United States had used the weapons inspectors to get information for the boming campaign. This has been substantiated by Scott Ritter and others who were weapons inspectors at the time. Thus, Kerry's statement is intentionally misleading in its simplicity.

{i]In the absence of international inspections, it is vital that tight sanctions remain in place on exports of military goods and dual-use technologies to contain Iraq’s ability to threaten its neighbors.

So here he is condoning the sanctions. Maybe this is where we differ (as you being a Kerry supporter and I not being one). I think the sanctions were wrong. Here is what Kerry states earlier, in the VERY SAME SPEACH:

Each newspaper story about commercial flights from Moscow or Paris into Baghdad International Airport further discredits the sanctions regime. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq continue to suffer terribly, as Saddam profits from the sanctions, using them as a tool for maintaining his reign of terror.

So he is acknowledging that the Iraqi people "suffered terribly" from the sanctions, yet he thinks that it is "vital" to maintain them. I will give him credit for this: he is awfully unique in American politics to actually CARE that the Iraqi people were suffering under the sanctions. But to know this and advocate the continuation of them is unthinkable in my mind. But I always was an idealist.

[DrFunkenstein]

77. Arms Control Vs. Economic Sanctions

I hope this distinction clears things up for you. Kerry is saying, and I hope you agree, that Saddam should not have been allowed to trade for military weaponry and dual-use technology.

However, he is one of the first people in the Senate to really come out strongly about the negative effects of the sanctions - both on the lives of Iraqis and how it crippled any internal resistance to Saddam's regime.

I think that is absolutely on the money (again).

[blm]

28. He has said that Saddam was prone to miscalculation.

I don't completely understand why he hasn't said more about what they were up against in 98. I don't know how classified it was at the time.

Many of us women in the Feminist Majority Foundation back in 96 and years after were pressing Clinton to do more about the Taliban and the growing fundamentalism that was hurting the women and children of the region. That's why I am aware of some of what went on, because, unlike many, we KNEW what was happening there BEFORE 9-11.

By 98 Clinton and his team knew that Bin Laden had Saddam targeted and was trying to gain strength. The UN was not anxious to approve of an invasion, but Clinton went ahead with targeted bombing and HOPED that they accomplished the goal of disarming Iraq. They would never KNOW, though until inspectors were back in. The IWR DID achieve weapons inspections. Bush just had no intention of stopping there. That is NOT Kerry's fault.

[knowledgeispower]

44. BUT

Kerry has extensive knowledge of the BFEE and their plans.

Kerry voted for the IWR anyway.

Bush needed the IWR as a token of popular support to go to war

THUS, he was COMPLICIT in allowing the BFEE to carry out their plans because presumably he knew before hand exactly what those were. When he voted for it he gave that plan the seal of his approval as a representative of the people of Massachusetts.

[blm]

50. Yet Dean wouldn't even stand against Reagan-Bush on IranContra

a few months ago, and that is AFTER everything we all know about that issue. Yet somehow you can trust him more than the man who worked to expose it.

btw...I guess you think any agent who is working to expose a mob connection or heroin ring or supremacist group should play his hand BEFORE its ready to be played and when noone is paying attention?

[knowledgeispower]

52. You've got a point

But I see the IWR as the far greater evil than Iran-Contra.

[blm]

55. Then you're wrong. The IWR was legal and all resolutions

are meant as coercive tools to threaten cooperation from the target. Bush subverted that resolution to create circumstances for war.

IranContra was a complete subversion of the Constitution. It was funding terrorism, and supporting illegal wars COVERTLY behind the backs of the Congress and the American people.

The noted historian Harold Evans said it was the greatest crime against the Constitution of the last century.

[knowledgeispower]

64. But how many suffered directly from Iran-Contra?

Yes, it was a blow to the Constitution. Maybe the defining blow.

But not as many people died as a result of it as have as a result of the IWR. By the time the IWR's effects have worn off (if ever) I anticipate FAR more will have died from that than from Iran-Contra.

People. Killed by the U.S. For no good reason.

[sangh0]

69. Millions suffered, thousands died

and it's a shame that you would ignore the suffering of all those who were brutally murdered in Latin American, including the rape-murder of SIX Jesuit nuns.

Far more people have been killed by the Contras and the govt of El Salvador's death squads than were killed in the invasion of Iraq. How shameless it is of you to ignore this fact just to support a political candidate.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. I Was Surprised When You Said That

I'm not sure if you were unaware of the death squads or not, but their brutality was VERY well documented.

And the fact that the US was supporting BOTH sides of the ongoing Iran-Iraq war as hundreds of thousands died over a small amount of territory cannot be ignored.

[sangh0]

84. I think it's disgusting

the way some pretend to care about life and death issues while ignoring the deaths of thousands in order to score some partisan political points for their candidate.

[blm]

90. I'm shocked here, too. Knowledge is power?

This has GOT to be a joke. NOONE can pretend that IranContra wasn't a dangerous operation. NOONE with any grasp of what occurred.

[blm]

89. Are you KIDDING?

Those illegal wars in Central America? The arms that were being sold to BOTH Iraq and Iran to prolong their war? Shit, the BFEE probably made sure that war was prolonged because they probably instigated it.

[Eloriel]

67. Boy, when you find something new to misrepresent, you just

don't let go, do you?

IranContra is the scandal that came of trying to finance the Nicaragua war. It was NOT was Dean was talking about when he said he had "mixed feelings" about Reagan in Nicaragua.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

72. Dean stood to the side and did nothing about it

While Kerry fought on behalf of oppressed peoples.

[hedda_foil]

92. Okay, blm ... let's have a link on this one please.

Dean wouldn't stand against Reagan-Bush on IranContra????????

Please do provide a link.

[blm]

93. here ya go

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,464429,00.html
"Such sentiments have been misinterpreted by assorted Beltway savants as a leftward lurch by Democratic Party activists; it seems more a reaction to the rightward lurch of the Republicans. Dean, who has been mischaracterized as the reincarnation of George McGovern, is certainly no traditional liberal or even a traditional dove. "I told the peace people not to fall in love with me," he told me over breakfast in Manchester, N.H., last week. He said he had opposed Vietnam, but he had supported the first Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan. In the 1980s he had "mixed feelings" about Ronald Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua and opposed a unilateral nuclear freeze.

How in the world does ANYONE have "mixed feelings" on IranContra when we know so much about what occurred there? Wasn't he paying attention?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. The point that keeps sailing over your head...

WMD had nothing to do with whether Iraq should be attacked. Hell, I thought he had 'em (how the hell could I know one way or the other). The point is that there was no serious threat posed to us, WMD or no. He had no delivery system capable of reaching the US. Not to mention his use of such weapons would result in Iraq being a pile of cinders. Furthermore, if this world is going to continue to exist we need to abide by the simple rule that no country should attack another. Our invasion of Iraq is NO DIFFERENT than Iraq invading Kuwait. NO DIFFERENT. So please stop parroting the WMD line, because it's bullshit.


Btw, WE have WMD. Our "leader" is abhorrent. Should we be invaded? (I'm looking at you Canada!)

[La_Serpiente]

9. I'm saving this thread

thanks for the information. you really helped.

[AndyTiedye]

24. He was Doing the Funky Chicken

That's what they call it in Boston.

[jpgray]

14. I agree Kerry is apart from Gephardt and Lieberman, BUT

He certainly made the wrong choice, and in my opinion the evidence points to a politically motivated choice--he didn't want it to torpedo his presidential bid. Do I believe he wanted the UN involved, and to use force as a last resort? Absolutely. Unfortunately, that's not really what he voted for, but he preferred that to voting against it when it came to the politics of it.

It's really not as reprehensible and abhorrent as some people here think (though the war is both those things)--I wouldn't expect anything different from any career politician. Kucinich was an exception. It is well worth noting that Dean's slowly building opposition had him in roughly the same conflicted state as Kerry on the eve of the vote--luckily for him, he didn't have to cast one.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. We Disagree, But I Respect Your Opinion

I cannot force you to change your mind, and wouldn't want to. You seem to have really thought this through. I see alot of kneejerk reactions, but this is not one of them. Fair play to ye.

[knowledgeispower]

32. Its arguing over semantics

It's really not as reprehensible and abhorrent as some people here think (though the war is both those things)--I wouldn't expect anything different from any career politician.

Don't you see though? It is abhorrent. No matter what Kerry's motivation was for the vote, it DID allow the war and ALL that resulted from it. Kerry isn't alone in that boat, and hell I will even agree that Dean could very well be in the same boat if he were to have voted on it. None the less, I simply CANNOT find any rationalization for the IWR resolution and, as such, WILL NOT be able to support anyone who voted for it.

[sangh0]

33. No it's not

The IWR vote did NOT "allow" the war. A resolution is a non-binding document and has no authority behind it. A resolution can neither allow nor prohibit anything. The only thing a resolution does is express the sentiments of the majority that voted for it.

[knowledgeispower]

36. Once again, semantics

I notice Kerry supporters are all about technicalities. Nothing personal, but this is why I don't like the candidate.

You say that the resolution was non-binding and thus did not "cause" the war. Yes, that is true, but you know damn well that Bush could not have gone off to war without such a resolution. He had millions of people worldwide marching against him. It was pretty clear that he needed some token of popular support, and that was the IWR.

[sangh0]

43. I see your problem

You seem to think substantive differences are all "semantics". Meanwhile, we discover that in your mind "caused" means "Bush could not have gone off to war without such a resolution" and that I "know damn well" you're right.

You wish. It should be so easy for all of us to dismiss all disagreement by posting one word: "semantics"

Bush* made it clear that he was going to invade with or without UN approval (and sure enough, he did it w/o UN approval) and with or without Congressional approval.

He had millions of people worldwide marching against him.

And Bush* didn't care about who marches in Portugal. Meanwhile, back in the US, a majority SUPPORTED the invasion. I guess you forgot about that part.

It was pretty clear that he needed some token of popular support, and that was the IWR.

It's only clear to you, because for you, any other opinion is based on "semantics"

[knowledgeispower]

49. They aren't "substantive differences" in my mind

My point is that Bush needed the IWR to go to war and Kerry, having voted for it, was thus directly responsible for the war.

I don't see how you can assail that logic.

You seem to think that the IWR wasn't needed, but consider this:

- Bush was already engaged in a war in Afghanistan (a mini-quagmire)

- Bush had millions of people worldwide marching against him, and that INCLUDES over a million in the U.S. in one day.

- There was fairly extensive media criticisms of Bush's war plans (considering the U.S. press anyways).

- Polls showed that a majority of Americans were AGAINST the war until AFTER the resolution

To me, this all points to Bush needing the IWR for the legitimacy to start a MAJOR war in a CONTESTED region. Yes he had said he would go without UN or Congressional approval, but he still went up for Congressional approval and EVEN UN approval because that was how important it was to make his actions seem legitimate to the public.

He needed that resolution to make the war legitimate in the minds of the American public. Kerry voted for that resolution, thereby giving that legitimacy to Bush, knowing FULL well of the intentions of that action. He was complicit.

[sangh0]

57. In your mind is NOT "in reality"

My point is that Bush needed the IWR to go to war and Kerry, having voted for it, was thus directly responsible for the war

And my point is that your point is asinine, as is your repeating it as if it were so hard to understand. Maybe that's connected to the way you assume a disagreement is due to "semantics" (as if someone has trouble understanding your simple and simplistic argument)

I don't see how you can assail that logic.

You also probably don't see that there is no logic to that. It's a statement of your opinion and you have not stated any logic to support it. Saying "I'm obviously right and your issue is semantics" is not logic. It's an opinion. Saying "Bush* needed it, Kerry voted for it, so Kerry is responsible" is not logic. It's an opinion.

You seem to think that the IWR wasn't needed, but consider this:

NOW you're providing something more than an opinion. See the difference?

Bush was already engaged in a war in Afghanistan (a mini-quagmire)

Being in Afghanistan didn't stop us from invading Iraq so I don't see how it could have stopped us. Also, even today, Afghanistan is not seen as a quagmire

Bush had millions of people worldwide marching against him, and that INCLUDES over a million in the U.S. in one day

Are you a one-way poster who ignores everything thats posted? I've already pointed out that the mjority in the US supported an invasion and supported IWR

There was fairly extensive media criticisms of Bush's war plans (considering the U.S. press anyways).

Wow! So what? There was also pretty extensive Bush*-ass-kissing in the media.

Polls showed that a majority of Americans were AGAINST the war until AFTER the resolution

Not true. What poll was that? None of the polls I saw had a majority against the war. I did see a majority against the war under certain specific conditions, but they had nothing to do with IWR.

Yes he had said he would go without UN or Congressional approval, but he still went up for Congressional approval and EVEN UN approval because that was how important it was to make his actions seem legitimate to the public.

And he didn't get UN approval but he still invaded. And this doesnt stop you from thinking Congressional approval was required.

He needed that resolution to make the war legitimate in the minds of the American public

You just got done telling me that he also needed UN approval to make it "legitimate". Since he didn't get it, how could the IWR legitimatize his war when UN approval (which you claim Bush* also needed) was not given?

[knowledgeispower]

68. You are twisting my words

At first I thought it might have been on accident, but after so many posts of the same thing I am beginning to think it may be intentional.

I believe that the IWR was necessary for the war. I think that without it Bush would have had no legitimacy to invade Iraq in the minds of the American people in particular and the world as a whole. You want proof of this? Sure, just follow me over here to the machine that lets me hop to an alternate universe where the resolution *was* voted down. Oh damn, I forgot, its broken.

[sangh0]

76. You said the IWR could have been voted down

and you repeat it again by suggesting it might have been voted down. Reality disagrees.

When Bush* asked Congress to pass an IWR, Lieberman and Miller almost immediately said they supported it and that gave Bush* the 51 votes he needed. If your argument is based on the idea of defeating IWR, then you need to show that it was possible

So please explain how Kerry would have forced Lieberman and Miller (who has since endorsed Bush*) to vote against IWR?

You can't do that, can you?


You say "I believe that the IWR was necessary for the war" You've also said that UN approval was "necessary" to legitimatize his war. Bush* didn't get UN approval, so it was obviously not legitimate, according to you. And yet, he needed Congress to be legitimate even though it wasn't legitimate because the UN did not approve.

[jpgray]

38. For the primaries, I agree with you. Later, though...

I believe the longer the Republicans dominate the branches of government, the more likely it is they will attempt to make that dominance permanent, through fair means or foul. Maybe a disaster would shake the country up, but I don't care much for "heightening the contradictions", and would rather delay or even repair some of the damage and hope something better comes along. The Democratic candidate will be the best chance of that.

This without mentioning the draft, SCOTUS appointments, foreign policy, etc. When I said it's not as reprehensible or abhorrent as some think, I meant to the point of not voting for a candidate in the general election. It's certainly not in my best interest to abandon the Democratic candidate in this particular election over the IWR. I would prefer that the nominee voted "no", but I can't let that be a deal-breaker for me in 2004.

[knowledgeispower]

51. Therein lies the difference

I think it is necessary to take a stand against the BFEE and the Republicans. The Kerry/DLC type way is akin to putting a band-aid over a severed artery. Allowing the war AND ALL THAT ENTAILS is not negated by getting into power and putting a nice face on it.

Pragmatism vs. Idealism

[sangh0]

31. My response

I am one of those people who thinks that Kerry ahs the goods on the BFEE. As far as the question you ask, I don't see why or how Kerry's knowledge precludes a yes vote on IWR.

You also asked "How does this accomplish his goal of outing the BFEE?" My answer is "It doesn't, but everything doesn't have to be justified on the basis that it outs the BFEE. Some things are done simply because it's the right thing to do, and Kerry thought making a credible threat of force against Saddam was the right thing to do"

Because it seems to me that if Kerry knows all about the BFEE, he is complicit in it.

That's just absurd. I know about the BFEE. Does that mean I'm complicit? Is anyone who knows anything about this "complicit"?

[knowledgeispower]

35. Kerry has direct responsibility for Iraq war

You must have misunderstood me. I meant that Kerry's both knowing all about the BFEE (and thus their reasons for wanting the Iraq War) and his having voted for the resolution none-the-less makes him complicit in their plans.

And to answer your question, yes you are a bit complicit in the BFEE's plans, just like every other American citizen (as we are still, at least theoretically, a representative democracy). But it is certainly on a different level than Kerry's complicity, where he was in a position to actually stop the war from happening but instead voted the other way.

[blm]

39. The war was happening with or without Kerry's vote.

Kerry's duty was to preserve the UN and get a better bill.

He and others GOT the better bill. They had to pay for it with their votes.

[Mistress Quickly]

70. I have to disagree

with your statement:

Kerry's duty was to preserve the UN

His duty is to the United States first and foremost.

That line just stuck out like a sore thumb.

[blm]

91. He got the better bill

but a whole other backstory was going on with Bush and the GOP wanting to make the UN irrelevant and pushing for its dissolution. Kerry's duty as a foreign policy expert and a member of the world community was to preserve the UN as an international institution. I stand by that.

[DrFunkenstein]

45. Kerry Could Have Stopped The War?

"Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Kerry was aware that this was the only vote that was going to happen and it was going to win by a big majority, despite all his protestations.

Biden realized that there was no further negotiations possible. All that was left was trying to vote the position closest to the one he held. As Kerry had been arguing for disarmament since the late 90's, he chose to defend America against a long-term (not imminent) threat, despite his misgivings. Even Dean said something along the same lines:

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if Saddam Hussein didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm

[knowledgeispower]

53. But "having weapons" ISN'T a basis for war

Hell, I STILL believe that Saddam Hussein had some World War II era chemical and biological weapons around. But I DON'T think that they posed any real threat to the United States because Iraq had neither the means nor the desire to deliver them to the U.S. (or even our allies).

Thus, the Iraq War was not necessary. It doesn't matter if Kerry thought there were chemical or biological weapons. If that was the basis for war we'd be attacking every country in the world right now.

[sangh0]

59. Oh yes it is.

And the UN recognizes that or else it wouldn't have had a vote on the invasion to begin with.

[knowledgeispower]

78. Oh really?

And so we come full circle. Sure, TECHNICALLY, according the UN, having weapons of mass destruction is a basis for war.

But how many country's have WMD's? How many of those did we invade?

Are there any other countries that have commited material breaches of the U.N.? How many of those other countries have we gone to war with?

[sangh0]

82. Yes, really, and you know it's true

and you even say so. Then you go onto another argument (the way you skipped right past your mistaken "Bush* neede UN approval" argument) without acknowledging your mistake.

[blm]

63. It was from the 1991 UN resolution.

If there were WMDs then Saddam was still under the obligation to disarm either voluntarily or by use of force. That never changed, and even in 98 Scott Ritter testified that there were still weapons and after Clinton bombed, noone knew the status without having weapons inspections. Bush didn't want any more inspections, Kerry and others INSISTED on inspections before war, so they could know for sure. That cost them their vote.

We know now that Bush screwed with the UN inspectors and was cooking the intel.

[DrFunkenstein]

46. Duplicate

[sangh0]

47. So says you

but the evidence shows the BFEE as being determined to invade from the moment they stepped into the WH. ALso, Bush* explicitely stated that he didn't need, or even want, Congressional approval or UN approval so I see your statement that they could have stopped the war as nothing more than wishful thinking.

[knowledgeispower]

54. I disagree

The BFEE had actually been planning for the Iraq war for more than a decade. But that doesn't mean that they would have done it without congressional approval.

And maybe they said that they would do it without Congressional approval, but they went before Congress anyway so their actions run counter to their word. Which do you believe more from the Bush admin?

[sangh0]

62. Hahahaha!

But that doesn't mean that they would have done it without congressional approval.

Right. They would do it without the UN's approval, but not without Congress'. AFter all, we all know how much respect Bush* has for Congress.

[knowledgeispower]

73. Congressional approval was necessary

UN approval would have been the gravy. You don't need the gravy.

[sangh0]

79. Changing your tune?

Earlier you said UN approval was needed to make it "legitimate". Now it's not needed.

BTW, at the time the polls showed that people supported an invasion with UN approval by a higher margin than they did with Congressional approval. People considered UN approval more important than Congressional approval.

[sangh0]

48. The IWR already had more than 51 votes. How could Kerry stop it?

You say Kerry is complicit because he couldve stopped IWR. However, by the time of the vote, Lieberman and Zell Miller had already said that would vote "Yes", and that gave IWR the majority it needed to pass.

So tell me again how Kerry, or any of the other Dems, could have stopped the war?

[knowledgeispower]

58. You are being simplistic

If Kerry had indicated that he would vote against the resolution, it would have had a snowball effect.

Other Senators who voted for the resolution because they thought all the other Senators would might have made a different choice.

Support from a major Senator like Kerry might have given Kucinich even more support in the House, making that vote closer.

Combined, these things could have further energized the anti-war movement and made it politically impossible for Bush to pursue the war.

Yes, these are all hypothetical possibilities. But the point is Kerry didn't even try for them. Instead he went the safe way and voted for the Resolution, thereby enabling (just as did ALL the others who voted for it) the Bush Admin to go to war.

[sangh0]

61. Hahahahaha!!!

If Kerry had indicated that he would vote against the resolution, it would have had a snowball effect.

So tell me O Great Swami Who Can Read the Future, why didn't all the Senators vote FOR the IWR since Kerry is so influential? What happened to Kerry's Great Snowball?

[knowledgeispower]

75. Who is to say? The point is he didn't even try

I think that a few prominent Senators like Kerry standing up in opposition of the war might have stopped it. I certainly think it is enough of a possibility that Kerry should have done it. Maybe I am wrong, but the point is he didn't even try to stop the war. Since the war is really a yes/no thing, not trying to stop it and endorsing it are one in the same.

[sangh0]

85. Answer the question

You said "If Kerry had indicated that he would vote against the resolution, it would have had a snowball effect."

So tell me O Great Swami Who Can Read the Future, why didn't all the Senators vote FOR the IWR since Kerry is so influential? What happened to Kerry's Great Snowball?

Since the war is really a yes/no thing, not trying to stop it and endorsing it are one in the same.

I would agree, but I'm not inflicted with moral clarity

[nolabels]

81. It's called filibuster

There are few real Americans left in the congress, so who really needs patriotism anyway. The moneyed interests have installed a congress they know will kowtow to every corporate need.

The government won't start working and serving the people again till the people take back from the thieves that hijacked it.

I say start with the head pin (or was that the pin head?)




&imgrefurl=
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kennmelvin/tPins.Htm&h=264&w=296&prev=
/images%3Fq%3Dbowling%2Bpins%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN&frame=small

[sangh0]

86. You cant filibuster a resolution

Try again

There are few real Americans left in the congress, so who really needs patriotism anyway.

Gee, I would think patriotism of the sort you seem to think you have, would have led you to learn how Congress works. Yet, you still don't know that resolutions (and budgets) can't be filibustered.

The government won't start working and serving the people again till the people take back from the thieves that hijacked it.

No, govt won't start working until people learn how it's supposed to work.

I say start with the head pin (or was that the pin head?)

I say start with the pinheads who don't understand how their govt is supposed to work.

[nolabels]

98. Yea, I did forget that support for *'s Iraq invasion was a resolution

But the Democrats in the Senate could Filibuster till the next election if they were not sell outs.

I would also more than admit I am pinhead and vote for you for the US President

Btw the whole point and the reason you find me here is that government is not working, that is unless you’re a multinational gangster. I would be more than happy to tend to my own business doing all that goody two shoes stuff, like kissing college professors asses and saying how wonderful Madison Avenue is (if it really worked), But frankly even stupid people like me get to make statements that others might not agree with (even if some of them are incorrect). The problem I have is I don't think most people that goose step with these establishmentarians have a clue either.

I would have loved to been able to spend time studying in school, getting a college degree and such; unfortunately life does not always give out an even hand. I spent my entire teen years waiting on various types of customers (people) in fast food outlets (parents were poor and managed them), I enlisted in the military when I was eighteen and obtained my trade as Truck mechanic in the process. I went back to school many times (community college) working on more knowledge for my trade. (I am a nobody and damn proud of it)

I also figure I know a lot more about government than you’re willing to give me credit for, and that’s fine. I would just like to inform you though, if you think I don’t know shit about government, you obviously haven’t met the other people I know.


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.
(snip)

[sandnsea]

83. Weapons proliferation

What do you do when you know there's a murderer down the street and you also know the Chief of Police is a crook who runs a drug gang and would love to arrest the murderer to further his own crimes? Do you let people be murdered, or do you go ahead and support the crooked police chief and plan to get him another day?

Dr. Funk has posted on Kerry's concerns about Saddam Hussein going back years. I've posted on those concerns and his concerns about weapons proliferation going back years. The UN has to show some muscle on weapons proliferation if we're going to make progress. Not because Iraq was going to attack us necessarily, but to make the planet safer and in the long run, make us safer. I believe he really was concerned about WMD in Iraq, and there's plenty of intelligence over the years to support that, and really did want to get inspectors back in Iraq. This puts the UN back on track to begin addressing this incredibly serious problem, and it did. France, Germany and Russia are dealing with Iran, as is the IAEA and UN, and that's good.

So he chose the better of two bad options and I'm sure tried to place his general faith in the UN process, our allies to hold Bush to a reasonable position and the fact that an American President has NEVER acted like George W. Bush. The failures weren't just on these fronts either, our media was an absolute disgrace and has as much responsibility in this as anybody.

[Andy_Stephenson]

88. Careful...I have been asking that same question for a while now.

Flame shields working ok?

[DrFunkenstein]

97. As Long As A Question Is Posed Sincerely

I'm totally cool with it. Even if you vehemently disagree with Kerry, as long as you are open-minded, I have no problems. It's the kneejerk crap that gets my goat.

[Octafish]

99. Kerry voted to protect the United States.

Sen. Kerry said he voted to give Bush authority in order to protect the national security interests of the United States. He believed there was a threat, based on the information that the Sentate Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees had received from the Clinton and Bush (sic) administrations.

Kerry has no vested interest in helping along the business or political career of Bush. Moreover, he has no interest in seeing blood spilled unnecessarily. He is a combat veteran. Kerry knows better than anybody what a waste of human life war represents.

In 1991, Kerry voted against Gulf War 1. He understood that Saddam had been our guy, set up by our side, to move into Kuwait. Unlike the present mess, that war was very profitable for the BFEE.