Since IWR keeps coming up here's a quick timeline

Here's a quick timeline for those that care to know what really happened.

October: IRW passes. Bush goes to UN and gets an unanimous vote for inspections. Saddam agrees to let, inspectors return.

November- December: inspectors begin arriving in Iraq

January: with the military build-up continuing, Bush asks for a second resolution to authorize force. The problem is the inspectors have found no smoking gun and the Iraqis appear to be mostly coopoerating.

January 23rd: Kerry speaks and Georgetown University, "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."

Kerry also made this far-sighted comment that day, "The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Democrats in Iowa Show Split on Iraq
Prospective Hopefuls Run the Gamut

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12

DES MOINES, Oct. 5 -- Three prospective Democratic presidential candidates put their party's divisions over President Bush's policy on Iraq on display here tonight, disagreeing over the terms under which the country should be prepared to go to war to dislodge Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.

Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, said the United States should be willing to hold Hussein accountable and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but only if there is clear international support.

"I'd be willing to be the first to put my uniform back on and go and defend this country," Kerry said. "But I don't think we should pretend that protecting the security of our nation is defined by turning our back on a century of efforts by patriots and presidents of both parties to build an international structure of law and live by higher standards."

Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

How do you (more to point, how does Kerry) reconcile his voting against GWI and for the IWR?

And sorry, you're timeline has nothing to do with his voting on a resolution that bears more than a passing resemblance to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was a blank check.

In 1995, a defector reported on a nuclear weapons program that was much further advanced than thought. That changes the situation.

I respect differences of opinion on the Authorization for Military Force. Some saw it as a blank check, others didn't. Some were willing to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people and leave them suffering from sanctions, some weren't. A tough decision had to be made and the people who were actually in Congress had to make it. I'm looking for a candidate with a consistent record on this war and a consistent plan in stabilizing Iraq and handling international affairs in general. Kerry and Clark are really the only logical choices. And then I go to Kerry because he has a 20 year track record, I don't have to wonder what he'll do, I know.