Reality Check Bush & IWR

[sandnsea]

So now Bush is trying to say the IWR was, in fact, a vote for war. Funny thing, that's not what he said at the time. Flip-flopper or just flat out liar?

"What I've told others, including President Fox, is we have no imminent plans to use military operations," Bush said in Monterrey after meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. March 22, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/25/world/main504515.shtml

"The president discussed Iraq in a general sense, because the president has not made a decision about the use of military action vis-a-vis Iraq," the Bush spokesman said. August 27, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/bush.saudi.prince/

Such a resolution, Bush said, should not suggest that military action is "imminent or unavoidable," only that the United States was speaking with "one voice." October 8, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/

John Kerry has been consistent on his vote, it was a vote to hold Saddam accountable to disarm according to UN resolutions. This means total open disclosure of not only any weapons, but also plans, scientists, anything related to past or future weapons production. It's a total process that Saddam needed to be accountable to.

John Kerry has also always said that Bush bungled everything in the process of holding Saddam accountable, from what he told the American people to exhausting all diplomatic remedies to the execution of the war itself. He repeats his words again today:

``I read somewhere that the Bush folks were trying to say that we changed positions, this that,'' Kerry said. ``I've been consistent all along and I thought that the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein, but I thought we should do it right.''

``I thought we ought to reach out to other countries, we ought to build an international coalition, we ought to exhaust the remedies available to us.''
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-kerry.html

People have been so busy tarring and feathering the Dems over this vote that they let Bush get away with spinning another whopper, as usual. BUSH is the one who said this wasn't a war vote and that it was only a vote to force the UN to hold Saddam accountable.

Which is it Georgie?

Are Dems going to hold him accountable for this, or continue to bash Kerry in order to boost their own ideologically driven agendas?

[NMDemDist2]

1. kicked, bookmarked and nominated n/t

[sandnsea]

9. Thank you n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Kerry's consistency

Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

Let me be clear: 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 do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. 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.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. 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. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

Pre-invasion 1/23/03:
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html



8/9/04 :
In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.

Then, in his most direct challenge to Bush about the war, Kerry listed four questions for the president, inquiring about prewar intelligence, postwar planning, the lack of efforts to bring other nations into the war as allies, and why Americans were misled about the war.

And unlike Bush, who never mentioned Kerry by name during his New Hampshire campaign stop, the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

''There are four not-hypothetical questions -- like the president's -- (but) real questions that matter to Americans, and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," Kerry said.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2js

[emulatorloo]

3. Thanks for posting this. . . .EOM

[depakid]

4. Unfortunately, the analysis is of little use

if you can't marshal the media. Kerry is getting Gored and it's going to get worse. Just because we know what the facts are doesn't mean that the vast majority does- especially the so called undecideds. If Kerry's "strategy" is to go aften the undecideds, then his campaign's weak responses aren't going to reach them.

It's all about perception- and unless the Kerry camp starts getting on the ball, he's going end up on the defensive for the rest of the campaign, which is exactly the opposite of where he should be, considering all of the outrages of this administration over the last four years.

[sandnsea]

5. What about DU?

The left was so hell bent on turning this vote into a war vote for the last year that they set up the scenario we're living with now. It's hard for a campaign to frame the debate when the left won't even cooperate.

[depakid]

14. What I'm talking about is managing the media

We're a very insular community here- and the fact that we know what Kerry actually said and why he said it (whether we agree with it or not) is of little consequence to the public at large. I'm guesing that most of us knew what Al Gore atually said during the 2000 campaign too- and it made little difference, because the Gore campaign allowed the general public to get duped.

The Kerry campaign cannot keep letting all of these attacks slide without an equally forceful response- and that means using soundbites, memes and pointed rhetoric, just like the Republicans do.

Politics is a dirty game, and the unfortunate reality is that candidates cannot simply "take the high road" and refuse to play if they expect to win.

[sandnsea]

20. You underestimate DU

Believe me, if something plays here, Rove will know. Rove will do everything he can to break our unity. That's why it's even more important we tell the truth on this site. It's a tiny slice of the Dem Party and reflects various views in the Dem Party. While the left is more vocal here than in the general population, it's that left that Rove needs to break off. You think they don't come here to see how well their schemes are working? They're thrilled DU is in a tizz about that war vote nonsense, and laughing their asses off at us because we're holding Kerry more accountable than Bush. If the media gets wind that this can be a disruptive story, they'll run with it even more. Because creating chaos is what they do best.

The high road isn't just some ethical superiority trip. By now, people are so used to scum coming from the Bush campaign that they aren't going to believe anything Bush says. The strategy is to expose the smear machine, once and for all. You can't do that if you're down in the gutter doing the same thing they are. I heard the same "we have to attack" garbage back in May. Rove didn't win that round and he won't win this one. People are tired of slime campaigns.

[Jacobin]

17. Yeah. Who would want to stop an illegal war?

some crazy commies er somethin?

[blm]

6. For starters, shouldn't DUers get the facts straight instead of pushing

the Rove spin, thereby letting Bush off the hook while they mindlessly bash the IWR and Kerry who voted for it?

[Xipe Totec]

10. This is where the dialog deteriorates rapidly.

As we get closer to the election there will be more and more people visiting this site to try to get information. Not everybody out there eats, lives, and breathes politics 24x7x365.

There are many of us out there who are naive and bewildered by the Republican noise machine. Maybe we don't have our facts straight. Maybe we're just too lazy to do our own in depth research. Maybe we just ain't that smart.

Maybe.

But one thing is for certain: People who post questions on this board are potential and likely voters. They are giving us an opportunity to persuade them to vote the way we want them to vote.

Now it's up to you to decide how to treat them. You can educate them and try to correct their misconceptions, or you can humiliate them and tell them to go back to school to do their own work, or you can shake your head, remain silent, and look for posters on other threads who are worthy and appreciative of your intellect and ready to praise you for taking a position so remarkably close to their own.

[blm]

12. And some are David Horowitz wannabes who feign leftist views

while complaining about the Dem candidate, assuring that SOME gullible lefties will refuse to vote.

I know the difference between those inquiring earnestly and those who are spreading toxins. I also pay attention to patterns.

[sandnsea]

13. It's in the tone

I honestly think we can usually tell real questioners from moles. There's a sweet naivete in the tone of a real questioner, usually. A mole just comes along, drops a "gosh, what's this" and then sits back and watches the fireworks. Plus, there are regulars who we know are far, far left and never vote Dem, or others who are still swooning for their primary candidate. Kerry's been a favorite bashing target on DU for a long time now.

[Xipe Totec]

15. The Tone, Yes, I Agree

A point I want to make is that not everyone reading the posts can spot the moles. Newcomers will read the posts at face value, as well as the replies. How we respond to these provocations also leaves an impression on them. We too are being judged.

Just something to keep in mind.




White Roses

I grow white roses
in June as in July
for sincere friends
who extend an honest hand.

But for the cruel ones that rip
the living heart from my chest
no thistle or poison ivy do I grow
I grow only white roses.

- José Martí,
Cuban poet and patriot

[sandnsea]

18. Yes, you're right

I never thought of it that way. I'll try to be better. :)

[blm]

7. Snagging your post for other forums.

Thanks, sandnsea. EXCELLENT work. Nominated for front page.

[sandnsea]

8. And a meme = W is for Whopper

W - The Whopper King. Another Whopper brought to you by W & Co. Help me out, I'm not good at this!

(Thanks for the nomination, I just wish people would READ THE POST!)

[Xipe Totec]

11. I Did Read it, and it is great!

I didn't get a chance to thank you before on an earlier thread.

Sorry :thumbsup:

[Jacobin]

16. EVERYONE who was paying attention at the time KNEW Bush*

was going to invade.

DU was abuzzing with fax mills, email mills, calls to congresscritters, sending flowers to Senator Byrd for speaking out against the IWR.

EVERYONE who was paying attention knew that when Bush got the IWR passed HE WAS GOING TO INVADE IRAQ.

Deal with it.

[sandnsea]

19. Thanks for all your help

Bash the Dems, let Bush off the hook. One more time. And then get mad because the Dems don't have enough backbone. It's kind of hard to fight Bush when you've got the people who are supposed to be on your side arguing the very point you're trying to make.

Bush said it wasn't a war vote. Now you're going to let him get away with lying about it because of your hatred for Kerry? Sad, sad, sad.