How I would answer the IWR question

[dolstein]

I voted for the resolution because I wanted to be certain that Saddam Hussein had in fact disarmed, and approving the resolution was the was the price that had to be paid in order to get a commitment from this administration to go back to the United Nations and build an international consensus in favor of sending weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Unfortunately, this administration did not live up to its commitment. Had it done so, the inspectors would have been allowed to finish their job, and we would have learned, as we know now, that Iraq posed no imminent threat, either to its neighbors or to the United States.

I do not regret my vote. I believed then, and continue to believe now, that restarting the inspections process was the appropriate course of action.

What I do regret is that we have an administration that doesn't keep its word. And I aim to change that this November.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. How I would respond:

"Well, ya didn't leave me much fuckin choice, did ya? You may not remember it now, but all of you assholes yelling at me now used to be the assholes yelling at me then to sign the fuckin thing! Let's face it - you were all walking dead! I knew better, but what could I have done?"

[dolstein]

2. The difference between my response and yours

Is that mine could be spoken by a politician seeking the presidency.

[lojasmo]

3. Didn't you steal your response from Kerry talking points?

It sounds like total BS, so I assume so.

[dolstein]

6. DELETE

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Something Like This?

I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out.

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

[dolstein]

9. Pretty good -- the next time he gets asked this question

He ought to just whip out a copy of his floor statement. I don't know why he hasn't.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Same Speech Counters Bush Claims That Kerry Saw 9/11 Connection

"The administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11."

Of course, that prick, Jodi Wilgoren, just lets Bush's statement go unquestioned on the front page of the NY Times...

[DrFunkenstein]

7. That Was Actually Kerry's Position, No Shittin' Ya

Sorry is it's not fucking good enough for you, but what the fuck do you want? Dick fuckin' Cheney?

[lojasmo]

13. I'm just sayin'

If somebody's going to parrot Kerry's speeches, they should at least give credit where it's due. I mean really, I've read those same tired words here a million times. Seriously, they're nice words and all, but sort of disingenuous.

Here's what I would say: I was planning to run for president, and I knew I'd get killed if I voted against the war, so I caved. (that's what the memoirs will say, bank on it)

[wtmusic]

4. deleliction of duty, no matter how you want to phrase it

John Kerry took the legislature's check of the executive branch and threw it out the window.

[democratreformed]

18. That's my opinion too.

I can't come up with a good explanation for giving away the right and responsibility to keep the President's control at a minimum. That's what the system was designed for, right?

[sangh0]

19. Absurd

By giving approval to Bush*, Congress did not weaken their authority to declare war - they confirmed it.

[democratreformed]

20. So, by giving up their right to make sure that all other avenues

to disarm Sadaam were first exhausted before declaring war, they confirmed their power?

I guess, by your logic, Congress actually did declare war. That's back to a YES vote, which many try to say it wasn't.

[sangh0]

21. They didn't give up any rights, and distorting the facts will not

make your argument more crerdible.

For one thing, the government and it's elected officials do not have rights other than the individual rights that EVERYONE enjoys. The govt and it's elected officials have POWERS that were granted to them by the people. Since being elected does not gain them any RIGHTS, they cannot give up those rights because they do not exist.

Secondly, even if they were rights, not exercising them in one situation does NOTHING to reduce or eliminate one's ability to exercise that right in some later situation. I can, in a discussion, choose to NOT exercise my right to free speech and keep my mouth shut, and that decision will NOT reduce my ability or right to speak freely in the future should I choose to do so.

By putting the decision to a vote of Congress, the idea that Congress has the authority to review such decisions was STRENGTHENED, not weakened.

[democratreformed]

22. Okay, I understand your point about them not having rights.

But, I think this particular argument has strayed away from the real issue. Please help me to understand how the vote in question was not a decision to give up their authority over this particular war. There is something, I guess, that I am just not getting.

People want to say that those Congressmen and Senators who voted Yes on the IWR did not vote for the war. Either they voted for the war or they voted to give up their "power" to declare war to the President. If their is another option, could you help me understand it?

[sangh0]

26. Yes, there is another option

They delegated their power to declare THIS war (and not any other) to Bush*

IOW, the vote does not apply to any future situation. They have the same power to vote AGAINST a future war as they did before the IWR vote. The IWR vote did not affect their powers in any way.

WRT how a vote for IWR could be something other than a vote for war:

IMO, a "vote for IWR" is not a "vote for war". A "vote for IWR" is a "vote for IWR". The problem is, you can't think of a reason for voting for IWR unless it was to authorize a war that they supported. If that is the case, and you can't think of another reason, then I suggest you read the speech Kerry gave before voting for IWR. It was titled "Mr President, do not rush to war". In the speech he says war should be a last resort, and that his vote was NOT a "vote for war", but instead a vote to give Bush* the ability to use the threat of military action to force Saddam to comply with the inspections.

You may not like the explanation. You might not even understand it. However, I don't see how you could think that a man who explicitely said his vote was NOT a "vote for war" was voting for war.

[lojasmo]

28. Politicians lie

They speak out of both sides of their mouths to do something that's politically advantageous when their constituents are opposed to it...and even (gasp) when it's the wrong thing to do.

That's how a person can think a man who says one thing and does another is doing exactly that....because he is.

Thanks for the condescending tone, though.

"You might not even understand it"

If I was to say "wife, do NOT buy me beer" then give her money, the car keys, and a map to the liquor store, what does that imply? Can I still say I told her not to buy beer? Sure. Could thousands of sheep quote my "do not buy me beer" speech? sure. The fact would remain, though: I gave her money, the keys, and a map to the liquor store.

[democratreformed]

30. So do you have a link to that speech?

And, yes, I do understand that one vote does not take away that power for any future situations.

It is just that, in the early days, I used to discuss with other the dream of NOT voting for our legislators that voted yes on the war resolution. Then, I had to give up that dream. I am still trying to get over that. It used to be hard for me to understand that I was apparently in the minority in opposing the war in the first place. Now, it is hard for me to accept that we have no choice but to vote for tow people who contributed its happening.

It really is hard to accept, after getting involved, that you really have no voice after all. Now, I understand why so many people choose to be oblivious. I wish I could go back to being that way sometimes.

Like I have said before, it probably doesn't matter if "I" am comfortable with the explanation or like it, because, the fact is that the majority of people do not care. I suppose the anger that is evident now stems more from the "mishandling" of the war - not the fact that there was a war in the first place.

[CTLawGuy]

37. were you saying this in Oct 2002?

doubtful....

[zoeyfong]

35. Congress GAVE bush the authority to declare war,

which they knew he would, once he got the congressional ass-cover; it was a done deal at that point. The whole thing was such a sham and a disgrace. The resolution was designed for maximum deniability; fact is, Kerry joined the mob rushing to war, and now he and everybody else is pointing fingers.

[zoeyfong]

34. So you're admitting that IWR was a declaration of war?

I thought that the apologist line was that it was only a declaration of going to the UN. Refresh my memory, when war commenced, did Kerry object and say "Wait, we need to give the inspectors more time. We need to build a stronger coalition. I oppose this war, at this time"? Did he say that?

[BeFree]

5. That nails it, dolstein

If boosh had waited just a few more weeks before invading, the inspectors would have proven him wrong about Iraqi WMD.

The threat of using a 'Big Stick' got the inspectors back into Iraq, back on the ground poking around, and boosh knew he had to get his war on before they finished. Otherwise there would have been no cause or reason for any invasion.

Boosh is the only one to blame for the invasion, and kudos are due to the Senators who voted for the UN inspectors. However, they should have known boosh was lying thru his teeth the whole time, but that's no reason to blame them for the invasion and occupation.

[no name no slogan]

11. You assume that Saddam kicked them out in the first place

Which was not the case, BTW. Clinton withdrew the inspectors in 1998 in anticipation of a US/UK airstrike against Iraq, because of Saddam's "non-cooperation" with inspectors, who were trying to "inspect" sites that had no strategic value or link to WMD programs.

The reason Saddam was being obstinate with UNSCOM in 1998 was because the team was packed with US/UK spies-- which was AGAINST the UN mandate that set up the inspections regime in 1991. Saddam had every right to not comply with the teams, as they were not obeying the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

As far as Kerry "trusting" Bush to not invade.....I'm sorry, but millions of people all over the world saw through Bush's charade, with even less info than Kerry had access to as a US Senator. It was obviously a politically expedient vote for the man who was supposed to be the party's next presidential nominee.

I don't understand why the apologists keep rolling out these feeble excuses. If they (and Kerry) just admit that it was a politically expedient vote to remain a "viable" candidate (just in case those WMDs were found), it would not only bury the issue for good, but would give Kerry that much more credibility in the eyes of the voters.

[BeFree]

16. I assume nothing like that.....

The inspectors left Iraq in 2003 because they didn't want to get shock and awed.

As too your 'feeble excuses' comment, while you may not agree with our take on this matter, you must know you are in the minority of American voters. As I've stated elsewhere on DU, the political reality of the situation is: Had Kerry voted against IWR, he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected. To admit it as his reason, at this point, would bring on the boosh flip-flop accusations. Let it rest.

The simple fact is that if Kerry were president, we wouldn't be mired in Iraq. Agree or disagree?

[sandnsea]

17. No he doesn't

What happened in 1998 has nothing to do with the inspections resuming in 2002. UNSCOM and the IAEA have consistently reported that Saddam did not cooperated with the disarmament process.

I don't know why the rabble rousers keep saying it's a good idea for a Presidential candidate to say he voted for war and the deaths of soldiers out of political expediency. That's the dumbest single thing they could say.

Not to mention it just isn't true. For the millions of people protesting, y'all seem to forget that there were millions who weren't. And millions, including Dennis Kucinich, who believed inspectors needed to go back into Iraq. And millions, like Howard Dean, who believed a threat of force was necessary if Iraq didn't comply.

[no name no slogan]

23. Of course UNSCOM reported that

Before you call me a Saddam-lover, here's the disclaimer: SADDAM IS A VERY VERY BAD MAN, WHO PROBABLY EATS CUTE LITTLE KITTENS FOR BREAKFAST.

The reason Saddam didn't cooperate was because there were KNOWN US SPIES on the UNSCOM team! The government even admitted to this in 2000! This was also part of the reason he was suspicious of any "new" inspectors coming in, UNMOVIC or otherwise.

Like it or not, Saddam upheld his part of the deal. He allowed inspectors back in. He allowed them to inspect suspected weapons facilities. He WAS cooperating with the inspectors, even though it was obvious that sanctions would NOT be lifted against Iraq-- which was part of the deal with allowing the weapons inspectors in Iraq in the first place.

Furthermore, the new inspectors reported that they had found 97% of the weapons he was known to have. It was also well known that most of the "missing" weapons probably no longer existed.

I don't know why the rabble rousers keep saying it's a good idea for a Presidential candidate to say he voted for war and the deaths of soldiers out of political expediency. That's the dumbest single thing they could say.

Or is it? What is so dumb about coming clean to the voters, and showing yourself to be a man of integrity? Maybe it will piss off a few "political handlers" who believe the voters should buy any line of bullsh!t fed them, but since when do they decide entire elections?

Before he was assassinated, do you know why so many people respected John F. Kennedy?

Because when he fscked up, he took responsibility for it.

After the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, did Kennedy waffle around and try to blame the Eisenhower administration for planning such a complete catastrophe of an operation? NO, he did not. He got in front of the American people, and said, "I made a mistake".

He didn't try to hem and haw around it, or make up some bullsh!t excuse about "trusting" a known thief and liar, he confronted it, HEAD ON, and admitted to it.

I'm still waiting for Kerry to make such a bold move. Not only would it show him to be a man of integrity, it may also bring in a lot of previously cynical voters who are just looking for an HONEST person to run this country, and not yet another "politician".

[sandnsea]

24. He has

He's said it was a mistake to trust this President. It's been posted on DU numerous times. There's nothing he or anyone else could say to those who have their mind made up to hate him over the war vote. There's never been anything he could say. It's been hashed over on this board for a year now and those who have decided it was political expedience refuse to budge. Or that Bryd is such a defender of the Constitution, when he just voted to amend it to discriminate against homosexuals. Or whatever other justifications people come up with to hate him over the war vote.

The simple truth is, we didn't know what Iraq had and inspectors needed to be put back in that country. Like I said, even Dennis Kucinich agreed with that. Even Wes Clark agreed with that and the course of action of a resolution to force the UN to get those inspections going was exactly what he recommended and what Kerry voted for. The truth is, the anti-war people have spun this war vote into something it never was for their own political purposes.

[no name no slogan]

25. But we DID know what he had

or at least we had a pretty good idea of what he DIDN'T have.

Go and read the article I've linked to. This was common knowledge among MANY of those in the government. However, for political expediency (or to remain "viable" as a candidate, if you will) some people still voted for the president's resolution.

EVERYBODY wanted inspections to start again-- that was a no-brainer. The point is that anybody with any sense of who this pResident is knows damn well that he (and his minions) cannot be trusted. If FL wasn't enough indication of this, I don't know what was.

Kerry's excuses have all been "I regret trusting the president" and "I should not have believed him". This rings absolutely false, and hedges his whole culpability on the words of a known fraud and cheat. When will he stand up and say "I AM SORRY" for supporting and enabling this deceptive and treacherous president?

Believe it or not, things like integrity still matter to voters-- from BOTH parties.

[zoeyfong]

36. Right on Brother/Sister.

If democrats let this disgraceful behavior by their own go by, then what do they really stand for? I do not want to win bad enough to pretend that supporting Bush's mad crusade was nothing but an honest mistake, or not even a mistake at all, as some people are suggesting.

[Nicholas_J]

12. Not so

The final report of UNMOVIC in June did not find that there were not WMD's. The final report that Hans Blix gave stated that under the conditions that they had to operate under in Iraq, witohut co-operation from Husseins government, there was no way for them to tell one way or the other whether there were WMD's or not though during the time they were given to locate them, they were unable to.

No WMDs found in Iraq: Hans Blix

February 14, 2003 22:25 IST


Hans Blix, executive chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, updated the Security Council on Friday about the searches carried out in Iraq.

Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country, but did not rule out the possibility of some existing.

He said the main problem lay in locating such chemical weapons as the deadly VX nerve agent Iraq was known to have had in 1998, which are not on the Iraqi declaration.

"Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction," Blix said.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm

THe 800 page report itself is far more precise in reporting Blix' and UNMOVICS findins which were pretty much that they didnt have enough time to locate them, and no co-operation from Hussein in locating them. The report itself would have met the conditions under resolution 1441 for Bush to go on with his invasion, rather than prevent it, as the resolution required the active participation of the Iraqi Government searching for WMD's anmd Blix' report is quite clear in the fact that Husein and his government obstructed all attempts to search for weapons.

The UN inspectors left Iraq with no proof either way of existance of WMD's or not. Blix indicated as much in his reports, and also indicated that had the inspectors been given the extra few months, there would still be no way of ascertaiing the existance of WMD's without the full co-operation of the Iraqi Government.

[BeFree]

14. That's all fine and dandy, Nicholas_J, but

We now know there were NO WMD in Iraq. So, given your excellent report, which 'almost' concludes what we now know to be true, it remains the failure of boosh in that he went ahead and invaded with shock and awe.

I've always held that had the US only run a limited excursion into Iraq - say limited to helping the inspectors inspect - then the massive boondoggle boosh has created would have never been born.

Remember also that the UN never sanctioned the invasion, and that boosh pulled his proposed resolution from the UN because he knew they wouldn't go for it.

No two ways about it.... Kerry may not have been totally right, but boosh was totally wrong.

[sandnsea]

15. Inspections cut short

It doesn't really matter what the report in June said because they didn't have an opportunity to continue the inspections. Who knows what would have happened with one voice from the UN and continued inspections.

[Nicholas_J]

29. In the report

Blix states that it was his belief that Saddam had WMD's, and that the fact that there was a serious discrepancy between the information about large quantities of chemicals ordered in 1998 in order to make Sarin, which were in no way shape or form accounted for in the paperwork Saddam provided to UNMOVIC in 2003,was critical to the inspection regime. It was Bush who cut the inspections short by refusing to continue with the diplomatic measures in the U.N.

The terms of the October Resolution were fairly clear. Go to the U.N. and exhaust all diplomatic, peaceful measures, to the point that it is clear the the U.N. is either unable or unwilling to enforce the resolutions regarding Iraq between the end of the Gulf War and 2001 before any consideration of unilateral attack on Iraq could be considered. The only other option left open in the resolution was the nomal one placed in all such resolution in which the U.S. retains the right to defend itself in cases where any nation can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat to the U.S.

It was Bush who created the situation in which there was NO U.N. vote on what to do with Iraq, so it was Bush who walked away from the diplomatic, peaceful measures, before they had reached completion. There was no evidence that the U.N. was unwilling to enforce its resolutions, or that peaceful, diplomatic meas had been exhausted. When Bush discovered that "serious consequences " did not mean what he interpreted them to mean, and that the U.N. had every intention of fully exploring all possible peaceful means to get Iarq to comply with past resolution, he walked away from the diplomatic process, by not putting forth the joint British/U.S. resolution regarding HIS solution to the situation.

The fact is that Blix, and all of th other inpectors stated that there was simply no way to tell if WMDs existed or not OR if continuation of the inspections would be able to provide a conclusion either way without the co-operation of the regime in Iraq. The 800 page document includes a good deal of intelligence not provided by the U.S. including satellite photos of chemical other facilities that existed in the months before the war, but which had been dismantled just prior to the invasion of Iraq. Blix staes there is no way to tell if these facilities were invlived in the production of WMD's but there is also no way to tell if they were not.

The facts are, that had Bush waited until the final report of the first stage of the inspections, he would have gotten what he wanted, as Blix' report very clearly indicates that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441. Bush didnt want to wait until the summer, and therefore wait until the fall in order to not go to war in the dead of summer, but regardless of whether the inspections went on until June, as they should have,there end result still would have been war. France would have been in the position where even if they didnt wat to go to war in Iraq, the fact that the reoprt showed Saddam in violation of 1441 would have created the impetus for the other nations to go to war due to Iraqs non-compliance. There would no longer have been an valid excuses that the members of the Security Council could have made for not going to war, as non-compliance on the part of Iraq was also a triggering mechanism for "serious consequences". All the U.S. needed was one or two more nations to vote with them on the council, and Bush would have gotten what he wanted, legally, with full U.N. support.

[TeacherCreature]

27. thousands dead and wounded, economy busted

militant islamist over-running the country, thousands exposed to Depleted Uranium, soldiers emotionally scarred for life, OOOPS!

Is the democratic party that unfeelingly ambitious now?

[janx]

31. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you trying to justify some stuff or what?

What is the meaning of this?

[janx]

32. Are we putting our costumes on?

Are you kidding me?

[janx]

33. Bye, then. (expletive deleted)

How on earth can you believe that millions of people knew better than you did, based on the "evidence"?

And how can you pretend to support them?