Need help for explaining the IWR

[politicasista]

Why didn't Kerry oppose the war in Iraq or vote against giving Bush the authorization to go to war?

The reason why I asked this is that I was having a talk with a family member and they asked me this question. Since Kerry was a Vietnam Vet experienced the mental and physical toll, and protested the war, wouldn't it have made since for him to oppose this illegal war or vote against the IWR? Did he trust Bush that much, or was it just fear of being labeled "unpatriotic" especially after 9/11?

[elshiva]

1. This is a difficult one...

Someone needs to help me with this...Didn't Bush "box" the Senate so that it was next to impossible decision to make, a Catch-22? I think Kerry gave a speech about how he was only giving Bush the power because he expected him to go on with the inspections first...

Still strange to me, too because Kerry also opposed the first Persian Gulf War...
see also
www.kerryoniraqwar.com

[LittleClarkie]

5. Yeah, I gave the link to that speech in my post

Yes, Kerry said that if WMD's weren't found, he'd be among the first to bitch. And so he was.

[ginnyinWI]

2. sista,

In this recent thread of LittleClarkie's she gives a link to an article that might help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x18793

Toward the end of the article, it discusses JK's decision on the IWR and how hard a decision it was for him. Hope it helps.

[politicasista]

3. Thanks Ginny!

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

4. Some answers

1Some have said that Kerry might have thought there were moderating forces in the administration that wouldn't let Bush just go rushing off to war. Apparently there weren't, not even Bush's father.

2. Here's a link to the IWR speech Kerry gave on the Senate floor. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. I copied it onto a free forum I set up.

http://kerrycrat.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Research&action=display&num=1104648362

3. I think Kerry might have been blinded somewhat because he'd been arguing since 1997 that we needed to hold Hussein accountable. That Senate speech is on my site as well. He was predicting a 9/11 situation all the way back to 1997 in his book "A New War." There's even a Senate speech right before 9/11 where he's railing against terrorism, while the Bush administration was pushing missile defense instead. I presume they thought they could make a few bucks off missile defense.

But the truth is, Kerry's always been out front on this issue. He'd learned much from his Iran/Contra and BCCI investigations about how international crime worked, which is what he considers terrorism. When we were attacked he was furious and ready to do something about it. He wanted us to finish the job in Afghanistan. I don't know why he bought the Bush line about Iraq. He said he made his decision based on alot of input. He decided to get people together as if he WERE president, and he took all the information he gathered from various sources, and made his decision. I think he regrets it now.

4. There is still a website up called www.kerryoniraqwar.com which explains alot about Kerry's stance and about how he has been consistent and fair about it all.

Hope that helps.

[TayTay]

6. This was my favorite article explaining it

From Truthout
The Trial of John Kerry
12/10/03
By William Rivers Pitt

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

There it was. Your record is the best, Mr. Kerry. But you voted for the war, Mr. Kerry. Howard Dean was right, Mr. Kerry, and you were not. Your campaign has been wounded, perhaps mortally, because of this. Explain yourself, and while you?re at it, explain how you are going to win back enough Dean voters to keep you from becoming a footnote in this race.

For over a year now, Kerry has struggled to respond to that question. His answers have seemed vague, overly nuanced and evasive. On Thursday, seated before the sharpest knives in the journalistic drawer and facing the unconcealed outrage of Alterman, the Senator from Massachusetts explained why he did what he did. The comments below reflect Kerry?s answers over the course of a long conversation and debate on the matter.

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That?s what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You?re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words 'weapons inspectors' were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush?s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, "Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me."

[sandnsea]

7. wrong question

Why did Dean and Clark and Kucinich all say that we needed weapons inspectors in Iraq?

I am so tired of the duplicity on this war vote. And on the "stay the course" warmonger rhetoric.

There are two articles in GD today, one on Clark, one on Dean. They both say we have to succeed in Iraq. But when Kerry says it, he's supporting Bush's war.

And nobody ever asks "Was Bush lying when he said he had no plans to go to war?" That got buried because Democrats were more interested in bashing other Democrats.

The whole thing has been nauseating.

[JohnKleeb]

8. Its called a double standard

I agree, the real truth got mixed up with the bashing of other dems.

[politicasista]

9. I am sorry sandnsea and everyone

I agree this war thing is nauseating.

[sandnsea]

10. don't be sorry

I was just expressing my frustration. If you have questions, you need to ask them. I was making a couple of statements on how the issue should have been framed. It's not your fault it wasn't. If I made you feel bad, sorry, that wasn't what I meant to do.