What if Kerry had voted against the Iraqi resolution?

I was thinking about this as the Iraq war is becoming increasingly the debacle that many of us thought it would be.

I know all the arguments about why he voted for it, etc. But it's not easy for him to explain it - that is, it can't be explained with a soundbyte - it's the dreaded "nuanced." And with the polls showing more and more are questioning why he went in, he loses a big issue and, more importantly, a distinction between him and Bush. Or was his resolution vote a big reason why he won the nom?

Do you think his position would be much stronger and clearer now if he had voted no?

I think he has a HUGE winning issue/message on the "accountability" thing he's started talking about. What if said that he regrets his vote as part of that?

What say you?


eileen from OH

By voting for it, he paints himself as a political opportunist. Had he opposed it, his stance as a man of principle would be greatly strengthened.

Nader would probably not be polling as well as he has.

Then again, the DLC/corporate media probably would have destroyed Kerry like they did Dean.

too well, though I don't fault the DLC (as much as I despise them).

1) What if Kerry had voted against the Iraqi resolution?
A: Cats and dogs would live in harmony.

2) Will Diebold steal the election?
A: Yes.
2a) Then why bother?
A: Because maybe they won't.

3) Will Clark be VP?
A: Yes. Cats and dogs will live in harmony.

Great post--I needed that after a sleepless night!

Whether we like it or not, most Americans--Democratic ones--get their news from the 24 hour babylon. They bought the lies that got us into Iraq.

Any Democratic candidate WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY (I find that an important issue--several of our candidate's weren't in Congress so we can only speculate on what they would have done in the same situation; and yes, I mean Dean here) wouldn't have done well in the primaries.

In "Worse than Watergate," John Dean spells out the sneaky way the IWR preps were undertaken, and why so many felt that it was the correct thing to do--few felt that a war would really happen, and Kerry isn't alone in this.

I'm A DK primary voter, but a realist as well.

But I would LOVE to hear him come out and say how virtually the entire Congress and the American people were absolutely scammed on this issue. All he would need to do is quote Dean's book--it's all there, and it's damn ugly.

Will no doubt say it again. . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

<snip>
But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn?t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn?t have, obviously.

Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That?s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.
<snip>

Now, he needs to say it much LOUDER.

They don't like the idea of bad people having bad weapons. This will never change, and they will never 'regret' this principle.

They thought that if a moderate well respected diplomat like Colin Powell said it was true, then it must be true.

Given that, they wanted Bush admin to pursue every option to disarm before going to war; and to only go to war as a last resort after all else failed.

But GWB did the wrong thing at every turn - dissed the UN, dissed our allies, went to war as a first resort, without a plan for peace, to enrich his cronies, abused the Iraquis.

----------------------------------
Kerry's position is the position of lots of people - and lots of people can relate to it. The only reason it is 'unclear' or 'muddy' is because the right wing says it is, and the pundits repeat it.

came to be--a casual browse at your local bookstore will suffice.

But the fact that the vast majority of Americans still support our occupation, still believe there were WMDs, still believes in the ObL/Hussein connection, means that a IWR "no" vote would have no chance to defeat Bush in November.

Again, DK Democrat here, and all I have to do is to see how my candidate and Howard Dean are faring right now.

We need to get Kerry to shout from the rooftops why he was DUPED (as the entire nation was) into voting for the IWR. I seriously think this is a WINNING issue for him, as it protects the position he took at the time and exposes the chicanery that led to the invasion--which was already in the offing when the IWR was voted on.

Hell, at the time, even I bought it. And I'm damned ashamed, too, but honestly, how could I have known any different?

The worldwide protests against this war were on an unprecidented scale never seen before, as was a large part of this country.

How could these people, who DID NOT have access to BushCo's "briefings", know the TRUTH about the war, yet Kerry and the others who gave BushCo carte blanche to invade not know?

It was purely a political vote. NOBODY in their right mind was actually "deceived" by this administration-- especially one that lied and stole its way into office.

Even now, if Kerry were to come out and say "I was wrong, and I voted wrong. This war is a disaster, and we have to end it ASAP" he would gain HUGE credibility among the American electorate.

The American public is very forgiving of the mistakes our leaders make. Even Richard Nixon was "rehabilitated" before he died, and Robert McNamara is enjoying big success for his Vietnam-era book/apologia.

Kerry should show a little backbone, step up to the mike and say "it was the wrong decision, and I apologize. When I'm president, I'll work my @$$ off to bring our troops home and get us out of that mess."

He'd gain credibility, AND points among those who can't see a difference between Kerry's and Bush's Iraq policies.

Are you kidding me? :wtf:

NOBODY in their right mind was actually "deceived" by this administration-- especially one that lied and stole its way into office.

I agree that he should apologize--and LOUDLY. I think it's politically expedient. I also agree that it was political--but if you don't believe the Bush administration didn't do everything in its power (and then some) to see that the vote went their way, you are just blinding yourself.

He was deceived by the administration, as was most of the US electorate. If you want details, "Worse Than Watergate" has them in buckets.

Not everyone is a left-wing political junkie, and the world does NOT revolve around Democratic Underground. The sad truth is that most Americans WERE decieved, and if we have any hope of kicking **shit back to Crawfor, he has to convince the SWING voters--the left won't win it for him.

I remember too well listening to Colin Powell when he testified before the UN. I remember trusting him. Believing the information that he said.

No..I didn't want to go in. I wanted our allies. I wanted more time for the inspectors, and I believed and it has been proven that there was no way we could afford it. We could not have a war and a tax cut.

I agree that given what was presented at the time and what information was given, it was not a bad vote.

It will be Bush's administration that will take this on the chin. I believe in time, Bush's ratings will continue to go down and Kerry will do better.

I don't mean your post, eileen, I mean the constant barrage of anti-Kerry posts that lament the votes for the IWR and the Patriot Act over and over and over again -- to absolutely NO effect except getting more people angry or disaffected.

I think if he'd voted "no," it's possible the RNC would be added that fuel to the fire that he's a Massachussetts Liberal Peacenik Weak-on-Defense Anti-Military Waffling Troubling Untrustworthy Wacko.

I think it's important to read what he said on the Senate floor about his vote at the time.

And I think it's important to recognize that the bell cannot be unrung, that there are HUGE differences between Kerry and the Chimp (and Democrats and Republicans in general), and that we MUST win this election -- the stakes have never been higher. All the hand-wringing and tomato-throwing over these two votes is counter-productive. (Again, I'm not referring to you.)

Frankly, it sounds like a speech straight from the White House overlain with a thin varnish of liberalism. A very thin varnish that did little to hide his eagerness to join Bush's witch hunt in the ME.

There's a larger issue here as well, that few people seem willing to talk about. Just as Bushco's invasion plans had much deeper strategic roots than simply the elimination of Saddam Hussein or the mythical WMD's, Kerry's vote in favor of the IWR was an endorsement of the PNAC doctrine of unlimited U.S. world hegemony, starting with control of the ME. That alone should have prevented Kerry from supporting it unless he did indeed endorse the broader objectives concealed behind the WMD smoke-screen.

on edit: Kerry's consistent refusal to articulate a real disengagement policy continues to suggest that he finds the occupation of Iraq justified, or that he supports its long term policy objectives.

"I was duped" is the cry of a losing candidate. There were a lot of experts inside and outside of gov't who said this invasion was illegal, unecessary and foolish. John Kerry is a smart man. To claim he was duped is to claim he is incompetent.

He should have voted no. He could justify that today just as easily and he can justify voting yes. He could say he supported removing Saddam when the time was right, when it was legal, when we were adequately prepared and competently led, and when it was prudent.

...if not for his IWR vote and he current "resolve" to "stay the course" in Iraq. At this point even an admission that his IWR vote was a mistake won't be enough unless he couples it with a strong anti-war sentiment and a POLICY of rapid disengagement. Like Spain's.

the election would have been a "slam dunk."

If Kerry had voted against the resolution, he wouldn't be the party's nominee, period.

A more interesting question is: if Kerry had voted against the resolution, would Dean have run such a vigorously anti-war campaign? Just check Dean's quotes at the time the resolution was actually voted on -- he left himself quite a bit of wiggle room.