Kerry & Edwards 'flip-flop', Gephart shows 'lack of leadership' on Iraq

[Padraig18]

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov. 2, 2003:

"IRAQ Democratic flip-flops

11/02/2003


IRAQ MAY BE a political trap for the Democratic presidential candidates.

Having watched Howard Dean zoom past them on an antiwar platform, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John Edwards, D-N.C., voted against the $87 billion appropriation bill for Iraq. The votes smell of political opportunism in light of the senators' votes last fall in favor of the war resolution...

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards justify their votes with the criticism that the $87 billion appropriation gives President George W. Bush a "blank check" in Iraq. But the blank check that Congress gave the president was cut last fall when it authorized him to go to war...

Mr. Gephardt showed a dismaying lack of leadership last fall when he lined up Democratic support for the war resolution. But in supporting the $87 billion appropriation, he also demonstrated his consistency... The flip-flops by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are shortsighted. They feed voter concern that Democrats are weak on defense..."

More: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial+%2F+Commentary/168A28F689A81B8186256DD1003AAADB?OpenDocument&Headline=IRAQ+Democratic+flip-flops

[blm]

1. There was NO blank check given in the IWR vote.

Certainly not the "blank check" that Bush wanted to avoid any obligation to the UN, avoid inspectors and to invade Iran and Syria, as well.

[Padraig18]

3. Words to the wise:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"

--- Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 158 years ago, on the Mexican-American war.

What power, precisely, DID Sens. Kerry and Edwards think they were giving pResident*? :eyes:

[blm]

8. ALL resolutions are supposed to be coercive tools

to get a desired result. In this case, full, unfettered inspections with Saddam willingly presenting full evidence of disarmament as put forth in the ORIGINAL UN resolution from 1991. Bush did not USE the IWR resolution properly or allow it to work as intended.

Bush had the bvotes to go in with the REAL blank check he wanted. Those Democrats who bothered to press for a curtailing of that resolution in exchange for their votes, get no credit from the sanctimonious who have no clue what horrors were in store with a real blank check.

[meegbear]

11. Thank God dean didn't vote for it

[DannyRed]

6. IF

as you say, there was no "blank check"...

Then how did we manage to get involved in a War without UN approval, without demonstrated Imminent Threat, or Clear and Present Danger?

IF there was no "blank check then are Senators Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman, and Rep. Gephardt going to accuse the President of violating the terms of the "non blank check" IWR?

Are they going to call for Bush's impeachment based on direct violation of the War Powers Act, and the UN treaty?

If NOT, then it seems that the IWR WAS a blank check after all...

See, you cannot have it both ways, sorry.

Geppie at least writes blank checks that he is willing to cash...sad but consistent...which is why I will not vote for him.

Liberman too, it seems.

But Kerry and Edwards?

[blm]

21. The blank check Bush wanted: NO involvement of the UN -

no weapons inspections and NO presentation of evidence. This is important because this forced Bush to overreach on the evidence, putting his credibility up for scrutiny - a test that he failed and his skyhigh integrity ratings went down. That is no small thing considering the press does its best to spin him as a great leader to be trusted.

You may think that preventing the invasion of Iran and Syria is no big deal, but, I will bet my house that the Iranians and Syrians and most of the American people do not agree with you.

[Larkspur]

42. What stopped Bush from invading Iran and Syria was not Kerry

or the pro-war voters, but worldwide criticism and Iraq turning into a quagmire.

Bush holds Kerry and the pro-war Dems in contempt. He's laughing at them for falling for his con game because that is what the beating of the war drums was about last yeat -- it was about energizing the Repuke base and depressing the Dem base to take over Congress in the 2002 elections so that Bush could wage war with impunity, and Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Gephardt, and Lieberman were suckers to fall for it.

[blm]

50. Yes...in Kerry's floor speech he specifically mentions Iran and Syria

and that Bush was curtailed from extending an invasion. That was in Oct, 2002, many months before Iraq was invaded, let alone turned into a quagmire.

[Larkspur]

52. Kerry is a poor source for proof that the IWR stopped Bush from invading

Iran and Syria.

Of course, he's going to take credit for something he really couldn't stop.

If it wasn't for our non-British European allies giving Bush the finger and not helping out with the Iraq war and reconstruction aid, Bush would be bulldozing his way through Iran and Syria today.

It wasn't Kerry or the pro-war Dems that stopped Bush. Thank Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder for leading enough European and Muslim allies against Bush and for not contributing troops and funds to help out Bush politically with his ill gotten war. They, not Kerry, recognized early enough that Bush's pre-emptive war against Iraq was the real danger.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

4. How so?

:shrug:

[La_Serpiente]

9. Starting flamer threads

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Monte Carlo]

5. Neither of those votes were easy to make, yes or no.

... for voting "NO", as well as voting for "YES". Voting "NO" for the Iraqi war resolution also meant voting "NO" for any sort of political leverage after the fact. It meant saying "Saddam is not a threat". That would be plain silly.

[DannyRed]

7. But, Monte...

Saddam was NOT a threat to the US, as has been demonstrated over and over again both before and after the vote.

Why did Sens. Leahy, Byrd, Kennedy, Graham, and so many others vote AGAINST the IWR, after all?

No, no...it all comes down to three nasty words...

Crass. Political. Calculation....

[Monte Carlo]

13. What does reality matter? Perception is everything in entertainment...

... and politics, and THAT is what the Bush Administration had a monopoly on just before the war, and they continue to have that sort of power today.

You can tell me that Saddam was not a threat, and I'd believe you because that was true, but that does not matter. I know why Leahy and Byrd and Kennedy voted against the war. I also know why Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton voted for it. What's wrong with political calculation?

[Josh]

16. Well, a lot of them voted 'no' because they thought it was an abrogation

of the Congress's power. "Congress shall have the authority to make war" is what it says in the constitution and a lot of the senators who voted against it, particularly Robert Byrd, voted 'no' more because he thought Bush had no right to ask for the power to declare war himself without congress making the decision. A lot of Congressmen and Senators were misled on intel.

[Padraig18]

32. My senator also voted 'no'.

It *is* an abrogation of Congress' responsibility, authorizing such wee[ing, dangerous resolutions. The 1st Iraq war was different, because it was under the auspices of the UN.

[bread_and_roses]

14. Silly?

The concensus of virtually the entire globe - including Iraq's neighbors, who would have had the most to fear if he had chemical/biological weapons - was that Iraq was NOT a threat. This was well known and documented at the time. The vote was indefensible. I happen to think Kerry has the best over-all record of any of the major candidates, but that vote sticks in my throat.
on edit: I think it unlikely, however, that the general public has nearly the problem with that vote that many of us here have, and I have doubts that it would be much of a liability in a general election. This board is a small world, and hardly representative of the general electorate.

[Monte Carlo]

17. Yes, silly. It was not so well known at the time.

With the U.S. press having abandoned it's job, the Bush Administration controlled the national debate over the subject. All the documentation in the world isn't going to stand up to that.

[bread_and_roses]

18. Monte, are you suggesting

that millions of people around the globe knew there was no threat but somehow our Senators didn't? The thousands and thousands of us who marched against the war knew but somehow Kerry, Gep, and Edwards didn't?

[Monte Carlo]

20. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but that's not the problem.

All of those people marching is nice and everything, but I don't see how that either puts weapons in or takes weapons out of Saddam's hands.

[polpilot]

44. Kerry, Gep, and Edwards couldn't figure it out and now want to be the

leader of the U.S.??? Uhhhh...no thanks.

A fool with a globe could have figured it out in 15 minutes. Absurd contention.

Dean '04...

[Padraig18]

51. Lots of people were smart enough to figure it out.

But they weren't running for President and wanting to look 'tough on Saddam', like those 3 were...

[Padraig18]

22. "Silly"?

Dick Durbin, who is MY Senator, had no trouble voting 'no' for it, even though he was facing re-election. He called it "... an abdication of our Constitutional responsibilities and a disastrous precedent".

He won re-election, even though most of his constitutents supported the invasion; like the late Paul Wellstone, Dick Durbin showed true character, and mature judgment, which the voters here valued more than they did their personal belief that the invasion was a good thing.

[quinnox]

10. I noticed the bold highlights

Are these statements of fact or opinion?

[DannyRed]

12. Of course

They are opinion!

Otherwise it would be harder to spin them and less fun to flame using them

Do you think all the Dean Flame Posts are based on "facts" or on opinions about and interpretations of "facts"?

Please.

If we were all being entirely fact based and objective, this discussion board would not be NEARLY so stupid, juvenile, lame, and petty...

Dontcha think?

[demgrrrll]

15. No author? I couldn't find the name of the writer of this piece. Does

anyone know who wrote this piece?

[Padraig18]

23. Try the link.

That's why I put it in there. :hi:

[demgrrrll]

43. I did try the link before I posted the message, I do not see a name

Just a headline, a date and an editorial. Where else should I be looking, I am interested in who wrote this piece.

[Padraig18]

45. The editorial board did.

It has no single author, per se, but represents the collective opinion of the management of the Post-Dispatch. Sorry if I misunderstood your question. :hi:

[pansypoo53219]

19. how could any senator on 'our' side

consider that george was giving them all the facts(the real facts) and not playing politics. they shpould have listened to us before Nov 02'. Time to get outside the belt.

[bread_and_roses]

24. I think that Kerry supporters

(among whom I do not yet count myself, although I lean toward him among the major candidates) would be better off just admitting that the IWR vote was political expediency and focusing on his record in other areas. Same for Edwards and Gephardt supporters. Certainly, examining his other statements, I think that "peace candidate" hardly describes Dean. And he looks far more "status quo" to me on other issues than Kerry. But, as someone else said, perception is all.

[Meshuga]

26. Dean is only in the race

because of the IWR vote. Otherwise he wouldn't be a factor in the election. Dean is not anti-war but he likes to smear Kerry as pro-war because of the IWR vote. If I were Dean or a blind supporter of Dean I would too since the IWR vote got Dean where he is now.

Too bad Dean is trying to take the grace away from the one person who voted against the IWR (that person being Kucinich). The Kucinich people don't seem to be as "pissed" at Kerry for the IWR vote as the Dean people are. Why is that?

Kucinich supporters don't polute DU with so many anti-Kerry threads because of the IWR vote. Why is that? Maybe because they don't need it. Only the Dean people need the IWR to disqualify Kerry and keep their candidate alive.

[Padraig18]

29. "The Kucinich people don't seem to be as "pissed"...."

Perhaps because the Kucinich people don't constantly take cheap, opportunistic shots at Gov. Dean, as does Sen. Kerry, a man who needs to remember the old adage that "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

Ya think?

[blm]

37. Kerry didn't start this crap, Dean did. And if Kerry didn't respond

to Dean's 10 month long attack strategy, when would the media even attempt to do their job of scrutinizing Dean's candidacy and his full record as governor? Hell, they are still way behind the eight ball on Dean, and still calling him an antiwar liberal when we all know he is neither.

[Padraig18]

38. 'Dean started this crap'?

Did he, now? A substantial number here would disagree with that statement, you know?

[blm]

46. They would be lying if they did.

Dean started attacking the other candidates on Jan.23. Noone reciprocated for over 4 weeks. Most people here are well aware of it, and even applauded Dean's attacks because it was a good way to get his name in the media.

[Padraig18]

47. Must have been very traumatic ,...

...especially since you remember the actual day it supposedly 'started'. What time was it? What were you wearing? :hi:

[MercutioATC]

54. Absolutely untrue.

Dean was speaking out against the war when it enjoyed 65%-70% voter approval. So was Kucinich. The disparity in their poll numbers clearly illustrates that the IWR is NOT a substantial factor in Dean's popularity.

[Monte Carlo]

36. Here's MY important opinion on the matter...

In the end, I don't really know what Kerry was thinking when he made his "YES" vote. Maybe it was political expediency, maybe it thought Saddam really had ready weapons (or had a good chance of having them), maybe it was all a major screw-up on his part. All I know is that I was very disappointed when I heard that, and I immediately questioned my support for him. I mean, how could have he voted "YES" to give Bush a blessing to make war thousands of miles away against the vocal disapproval against the rest of the world, sans those in Bush's front pocket? On a case for war that was bogus from Day 1, no less.

To give you the honest truth, I haven't fully forgiven Kerry for that vote, but I cannot fault him forever about it, either. That vote was a fantastic political wedge, which really forced a lot of Democrats to take the option they hated the least. No one wants to go to war on a whim, but on the other hand, no one really liked Saddam Hussein, especially his own people. With Bush's war drums beating so loud at the time, I myself had grown some doubts about my opposition to the war. Maybe Saddam was ready to use weapons - it's hard to put past a guy like him, who had a history of brutal aggression. Plus, everyone in the media had an opinion, too.

One of the biggest Democratic hawks towards Iraq and Saddam was Bill Clinton. During his 8 years, he routinely threatened Saddam with an all-out invasion whenever he acted up, while often bombing small installations on the side. Kerry's record often puts him side-by-side with Clinton on those military actions, which killed innocent Iraqis as well as legitimate targets. I know neither of those men are war mongers; find me a Vietnam vet eager to charge back into battle. Yet, they knowingly made decisions that resulted in collateral damage, aka, civilian deaths.

Here's what I think... at the level that the POTUS and the Senate operate in the world on is somewhat God-like. They must make difficult decisions that will have big consequences, no matter what decision they make. Kerry made one when he voted "YES". He has been my Senator for years, and I know that he means well. It was stupid, I thought, but it is not the only thing I care about in this coming election.

I think John Kerry is our best shot of beating Bush in November, at being the President for the next 4 years, and at being a leader for the Democrats for at least the next 4 years. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to have to do all that, while at the same time endure the full brunt of the GOP media onslaught that WILL be coming. I have absolutely nothing against Dean, I admire his courage and what he has brought to the primary process, but I am not at all confident that he is our best man for the job. He is a good man with a history of doing the right thing, his public speaking ability leaves something to be desired, and he comes off as somewhat awkward and stiff, and relating to the public is a big part of the job of President. Kerry, IMHO, is a loud, clear, and articulate speaker who is very good at debating on his own terms. He is also a bit long-winded, but I can deal with that. His voting and civic history would make any Democrat proud, unless that Democrat is Zell Miller. I think he would hold up the best against the smears of the Bush campaign while getting his own message through to the voters, and that, in a nutshell, is why I like Kerry for the nomination.

So there.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Yes And No

Gephardt showed a dismaying lack of leadership last fall when he lined up Democratic support for the war resolution. But in supporting the $87 billion appropriation, he also demonstrated his consistency...

Yes.

The flip-flops by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are shortsighted. They feed voter concern that Democrats are weak on defense...

No.

[bread_and_roses]

31. I agree that the "no"

on the 87Billion is unlikely to be percieved by voters as "weak on defense," at least from what I am hearing and reading now...voters are none too happy to see all that money going to Iraq when their own needs are unmet. Also, nothing I see, hear, or read tells me that the IWR is much of a factor among most voters. They equate Iraq=Bush; we should try to keep it that way. The IWR issue is pretty confusing for anyone not a political junkie. (My opinion, which is merely opinion, of course, is based on what I read and on doing political work almost daily.) Of course, everything can change between now and the general election, which is much more important than our internecine squabbles. But I would far rather see the candidates arguing over any other issue than Iraq...we REALLY need to keep the Iraq focus on Bush & Co.

[Padraig18]

33. Oh, but they do.

First they support *involving* our troops, but then vote against the monies neccessary to support them and their efforts monetarily. It is a distinction the Mayberry Machiavelli will *not* fail to point out to the American people, should either Kerry or Edwards secure a place on the ticket.

[bread_and_roses]

34. Padraig, I respect your opinion

and come the general election, you may be right...but it is not what I am seeing and hearing now, and I am talking to voters daily (admittedly in my small pond, but I also read everything I can from elsewhere). So far, what I am seeing (not that I necessarly like it, understand) is that most voters are still unwilling to condemn the war on Iraq, but are uneasy and somewhat disgruntled over the 87 Billion. The analysis, comparisons, policy discussions here are far more subtle than that most people engage in...which is not to say the general electorate is stupid, I don't think they are. But for whatever reasons of our own, we spend a lot of time on politics...most people are far too over-burdened with their work schedules, family, and juggling their debt to take that time. Which is exactly what our Corporate masters and their puppets in Washington want, of course.

I still think we do ourselves a disservice haggling and placing blame on Democrats over this war. Keep the fire on Bush; that is what will serve us if the situation continues to deteriorate.

[Padraig18]

35. I largely agree, and I hear essentially the same things.

I do, however, see a growing "we were lied to" sentiment here in IL; as you point out, people are much more upset with the $87 billion, overall. Nonetheless, I think my point about what Karl Rove will do with those two votes is legitimate; Kerry and Edwards have both placed themselves in unenviable positions unneccessarily. Other senators voted against the IWR, and the voters did not react with outrage.

My candidate's 'judgment' and 'flip-flops' are called into question with unabashed glee here on a regular basis; I believe it is neccessary to point out to some zealots that their candidates are also vulenrable to the same charge, and with equally-good reason.

[paulk]

28. Damned if you do

damned if you don't.

Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards didn't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines.

[AWD]

39. Better...

Better to have sat on the sidelines screaming for the good guys than to have been on the field and hand the ball to the other team.

[MercutioATC]

55. Agreed, but I still believe they should have voted their principles,

not voted to save their political asses.

"Trusting" an opposing-party President who's chosen to surround himself with hawks to "do the right thing" is either 1) a poor attempt to deflect blame for an indefensible vote or 2) criminal ignorance.

I've heard the vote defended both ways...people either say that it was the better alternative because it imposed restrictions that the President chose, later, to ignore or from declaring war and does not have the authority to impose any binding restrictions on him.

In either case, I still feel that a "yea" vote cannot be defended. In the first circumstance, the IWR gave the President Congressional support for the war and provided no binding restrictions on his actions. You'd have to "trust" the President to do what he said he'd do. That's just really, really naive. In the second circumstance, Congres has no power to restrict the President anyway, so there would be absolutely NO reason to vote in favor of the IWR.

I believe that the true reason for the "yea" votes was that the public was angry and scared and wanted the government to take action. Rather than risk the negative press and have to try to explain themselves to the voters, they took the easy (and politically expedient) way out and voted to support the President. Worse yet, they now try to blame the President for abusing their "trust" when they should have known better than to trust him in the first place (if that was ever an issue at all).

I'd have much more respect for a candidate who would just say "I made a mistake" as some Congressmen have, than those who keep trying to defend their vote.

[Padraig18]

56. Precisely the point!

I admire both Congressman Kucinich and Congressman gephart for their consistency on the issue, even though each voted differently; Sens. Kerry and Edwards want it both ways. To have trusted * on *any* issue, much less war, is criminal stupidity; this issue is hardly novel, as my quotation in post #3 proves.

Their votes in favor of the IWR, but against the $87.5 billion are nothing more than political pandering and expediency, no matter how hard they try to 'nuance' those votes.

[Padraig18]

30. Kick

[Padraig18]

40. Kick

[Padraig18]

41. Kick

[Padraig18]

48. Evening-shift kick

[Padraig18]

49. Kick

[Padraig18]

53. Kick

[Padraig18]

57. kick

[Padraig18]

58. Kick