Dumb question, but...

[politicasista]

Why is the IWR vote brought up again? Not just here, but in the media? Shouldn't the focus be on trying to get out of Iraq? I understand about 2008, but every time it is brought up, it forces Kerry to defend himself all over again.

I am glad he has apologized for his vote, and yes, I am glad he will continue to speak out on this war, but every time the "voted for the war" comment/spin is brought up, it seems like a "We told you so" from the senators (i.e. Uncle Ted) that voted against it.

Hope I am not trying to be mean, just now easy saying that Bush would have invaded without a vote, but to no avail. (I think that's one issue this Anti-war household) has with Kerry (and yes, Hillary and others that voted for it). :shrug:

[rox63]

1. People are asking the '08 prez candidates about their IWR votes

So it's getting a lot of attention again. Hillary just got hammered about it in New Hampshire over the weekend.

[whometense]

2. I think Obama has made it

a central issue in his campaign. Since he's saying he ought to be the nominee because his judgment is better than those who voted for the resolution, it brings the whole question front and center again.

[politicasista]

3. Ok, that makes sense

As rox said, I know that Hillary got hammered in NH for it, and there was an article out in GD/P about the Anti-War protesters (A.N.S.W.E.R.)interrupting Obama's speech.

[karynnj]

4. It's clear that until Hillary says she was wrong and sorry they will keep it up

The longer she insists on her current view, the less movement she can have. I think there are 2 problems with her current answer: It is not working but more important, it begs the question of why if you voted based on faulty inteligence, did you (and Bill) not speak up when inspections appeared fruitful.

Kerry, would have been hit by it, as he was in 2004, but the 2 differences are that he did speak up, making that argument credible, and he is working at least as hard as anyone. Not running, lets him blow off that question and deal with getting out - because he doesn't have to play that game.

[ElizabethDC]

5. I personally don't understand why she doesn't just say "I made a mistake"

so that we can all get on with it. I understand that she wants to put the focus on the fact that it was really Bush's mistake more than anything else, but I don't think her stubbornness on this issue will serve her well. I think she has a lot of great things to say about other issues, but until she gets past this, no one's going to pay attention to what else she's saying.

I think, at the end of the day, that this argument about semantics (ie, will she actually say "mistake"?) is useless because it obscures the real issue - what would the candidates do to get us out of this mess? That is an upside to JK's not running - he doesn't have to deal with the BS and can concentrate on getting the job done as a senator.

[karynnj]

6. I suspect that she may feel that in the long run it hurts

She has spent the last two years wanting to be seen as stronger on defense than John Kerry was. She has also been praised by the media for not "flip flopping". She may feel that sticking with that, coupled with being the "experienced" one, is better than competing and saying she is more liberal than Edwards.

She may also think that Edwards and Obama will split the anti-war left, leving her all the moderates. In fact, I think Obama, because he has nothing to defend on Iraq will sound more moderate to the moderates. Even without that, are there enough moderates left or has most of the Democratic base become radicalized.

[MBS]

7. what bugs me about his campaign pitch is that Obama

has been much more cautious in the Senate, voted against the Kerry-Feingold amendment, etc. Not quite fair, I think.

[politicasista]

8. Yep

It's always interesting to read people blame everyone that voted yes, except the people or one man that put us there (in Iraq) in the first place. :boring:

[_dynamicdems]

9. You know, I totally disagree with common perception about the resolution.

Everyone is saying that Kerry made the wrong choice and that those who voted against the IWR were right. In one respect, that's true. In another respect, it is not necessarily so.

If you try looking at this from a different perspective, there is another aspect of the vote that nobody is thinking about. Is a pacifist a good leader? I'd be very, very careful in voting for anyone who did NOT vote for the resolution lest I be voting for a total dove, that is, someone who doesn't believe in war under any circumstances. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe in war in principle, but there are times when it is unavoidable. The last thing we need in this day and age is either a leader who is either trigger happy (like Bush) or one who will never wage war no matter what. The judgment when to wage war and when not to is something I trust John Kerry for having. His vote to give Bush the "paper tiger" of a resolution notwithstanding, Kerry wouldn't have attacked Iraq had he been president.

Another thing to consider. What IF the dangers presented by to Congress prior to the vote had been based on good (not cooked) intelligence? How many of those who voted against the resolution would still have voted the way THEY did? That worries me more than a vote for the IWR.

Consider:

Kerry joined the Navy and served in Vietnam.
Kerry returned from Vietnam and protested the war.
Kerry voted against the first Gulf War.
Kerry voted for the IWR.
Kerry is now fighting tooth and nail to get us out of Iraq.

Does anyone see a pattern? Kerry is neither a hawk or a dove. He does believe in fighting to defend our country. Not exactly a pacifist, Kerry is a patriot and volunteered for Vietnam. He learned from his experience that Vietnam was a terrible mistake and he fought to get us out of that war. He voted against intervention in the first Gulf War where the United States was not in any immediate danger. But when evidence was presented in '02 that Iraq was a growing threat to us, he voted to give the administration a "big stick" to use (only as a last resort). And now he's fighting to get us out of a war we should not be in.

I've no problem believing in Senator Kerry's judgment. His error was believing false evidence, but I think that has made him more vigilant and more skeptical. It must have been difficult for Senator Kerry to learn and accept that the Administration of the Presidency of the United States of America deliberately lied to the American people in order to start an unnecessary war. Kerry is someone who has always believed in the positive side of human nature. This had to hurt like Hell. It's all experience though, and I believe this experience has made John Kerry a tougher and smarter leader.

[politicasista]

10. I agree, it has made him tougher and smarter

And I liked his explaination to Imus, but it still feels like he is having to defend himself all over again, like it's a vote that haunts him everytime the topic Iraq comes out, which is unfortunate. Yet, you have Dems that say that vote was "the best vote" they ever casted and they are proud of it, therefore, they are lauded as heroes for "doing the right thing" cause they knew that Bush was a fool and not to be trusted. And Powell too.

[_dynamicdems]

11. But did they really vote that way because they knew Bush was a fool?

That's the only thing I'm not convinced of. Did they make the right vote for the wrong reason?