Lately, it seems that there are a lot of “important” people coming out of the woodwork who are questioning our continued presence in Iraq and/or have changed their “pro” position to a negative one.
If you have been a supporter of the Iraq war, have you or are you considering also changing your position? What factors are influencing you to do so? Does famous and influential “power” people/organizations (such as those below) doing mea culpa’s have any influence on your decision? Have the “torture” or coffin pictures changed your mind?
Turning against continued USA involvement in Iraq:
Ummm… cite that Jeffrey Record ever supported the war to begin with? That article is months old.
Cite that Freidman is unhappy with the war ever having been fought, as opposed to just being opposed to Bush’s execution of the plan (as has been his position for months now)?
Cite that Buchanan ever supported the war to begin with?
I dunno who William Odom is, but cite that he ever supported the war to begin with?
I’d characterize him more as a paleo-isolationist myself…but essentially correct. Buchanan NEVER supported the war in any way shape or form. Its completely against his philosophy of basically letting the world hang…only the US is important.
What will be **REALLY ** interesting is to see if Kerry reverses his position. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that he’ll be asked in the debates: “Mr. Kerry, knowing what you know now do you think you made a mistake in 2002 by voting for the authorization of force to be used against Iraq.” It’ll be sqirm time in the ol’ town that night!
I don’t know if there are any scheduled yet, but I think it’s safe to assume there will be at least 2. Even if there weren’t debates, he’d still have to face that question by some interviewer sometime-- and maybe that will actually happen before the debates. Did anyone catch his inteview by Colmes earlier this week? I missed it.
Why, John, I’m a bit surprised you weren’t aware of Sen Kerry’s position, which reflected the positions of many in Congress. To wit: that they felt that the President needed to have the capacity to use force in order to negotiate effectively. The need to negotiate effectively in order to force Saddam to accept UN resolutions and divest himself of those dreaded WMD’s. You remember the dreaded WMD’s, don’t you? Need a cite?
There was no, repeat, no authorization for war. There was an authorization to use force if necessary, after assurances from the Admin that all deliberate steps to avoid war would be taken. They were not. It is entirely clear that the Admin intended to go to war regardless.
Is Kerry due some criticism for his stance? Indeed, as each and every spineless Democrat who was stampeded into this debacle. They didn’t have the guts to stand up and demand accountability, demand a second resolution before actual military action. The Admin won a huge political victory and milked it for all it was worth, in order to have its way. The results of this splendid political manuever are before us.
The Bushiviks impelled us toward a useless and destructive war, either by incompetence or plain mendacity. I am not inclined to forgive either.
A distinction without a difference. If it makes you feel better about voting for Kerry, that’s fine. The fact is and will remain that he voted in favor of using force in Iraq. Period. If he wants to weasel out of it, that’s his business. There were plenty of Democrats who voted against the resolution. Kerry was not one of them.
But that’s not even the point I was making. Let’s rephrase the question so that it’s clearer: “Mr, Kerry, do you think going to war in Iraq was the correct thing to do?” I would like to hear his answer to that question.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to see that this is merely saying “The President is authorized to go to war only after all diplomatic and peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.” This was what Kerry and the Congress voted for, because they made the mistake of believing Bush in the first place.
And saying this is “a distinction without a difference” is the debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”
I’d like to hear him respond with, “I believed it was the right thing to do because I trusted George W. Bush. In hindsight, I should have known better.”
Bullshit. Can you honestly tell me that you didn’t think Bush was going to go to war when the resolution was passed? Did you expect Bush to continue with diplomatic negoatiations? Show me a few instances when this type of resolution was passed by Congress that didn’t result in force being, and maybe you’ll have a case. Kerry voted for war and he knew it. Of course they had to add the niceties about seeking a diplomatic solution first. Window dressing, and nothing more.
I’d like to hear him simply say “No.” Without any equivocation or caveats. Simply “No.”
Well, you’re half right. You don’t need to be a lawyer. But the text clearly states that the president shall make the determination. The paragraph you quoted only suggests that the president must tell congress within 48 hours of his determiniation of all those things. It says nothing about giving peace a chance.
It says specifically:
The president is authorized to use force for 2 things: Defend national security and enforce United Nations resolutions.
The president shall notify congress within 48 hours after using force (or sooner if possible) that he has determined that: Peaceful means alone will not suffice to carry out the mandate above, AND that using force will not violate any other laws or treaties the United states is a signatory of.
There is a huge difference between “The President is authorized to go to war only after all diplomatic and peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.”
and
“The president is authorized to go to war. Please notify us that you have determined all peaceful solutions would be useless.”
However, the distinction between this last 2 sentences and onlly “The President is authorized to go to war.” is a political distinction without a difference.
Meanwhile, didn’t Kerry (or maybe it was a conversation reported by Kenedy) say that if he had been president we would not have invaded? I thought that was a pretty good example of Kerry waying the war itself was a mistake. Not simply that it has been mishandled.
MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, this is a 50-50 race between Bush and Kerry, but there is one area where the president has opened up in a significant lead. And in the interest of candor and clarity, I want to give you a chance to answer a question right up top, and I promise we’ll talk about the nuance later on. But the American people, I think, would like a yes or no answer: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake?
SEN. KERRY: I think the way the president went to war is a mistake.
I don’t know if that qualifies as “squirming,” but it answers the question for me.
What pisses me off is that through arrogance/ignorance/greed the US powers and lapdog Blair specifically ignored all advice from the better informed, all public opinion, all evidence, and went in anyway.
And those who suffer? Innocent Iraqis, and innocent US/UK/foreign foot-soldiers and contractors.
What I would like to see is a massive APOLOGY to the Iraqi people, to the UN, coupled with BILLIONS of US dollars and UK pounds in reparations for this fucking mess.
And possibly for them to start listening now, because there is still advice coming out that they’re not heeding. It’s all very well to have “2nd thoughts” - but only if those second thoughts are at least marginally better informed that the first ones.
Ah, John, do you really mean to tell us that anyone with any sense knew Bush was lying about all that UN stuff, and only those Senators foolish enough to think the President had any integrity might not have thought they were voting to go to war? That’s what that attempt to justify supporting Bush comes to, in all of its contortions. I certainly do not recall you claiming that at the time, but as long as you now realize he cannot be trusted there is still hope.
It mystifies me how you could think Kerry might never have been asked that question, and might not even yet have an answer prepared. He’s been quite clear all along that he voted for the process described in the bill, including full exhaustion of all diplomatic routes to avoid the war. *He voted for what the bill said * - “period”, in your word. That, too, as you may recall, was the general public opinion all around at the time. Bush went far outside the bounds of what he was authorized to do, but somehow you blame *Kerry * for that? Now, if you’d like to denounce Congress or any of its members for not restraining a rogue President with legislation or impeachment or refusal of funds, you’d certainly have a strong case - but that isn’t your claim.
In general: Should a legislator vote against *any * bill that he thinks the executive might intend to flout? That’s where you’re making your stand, and you might want to reconsider.
The Iraq resolution cited by rjung really does nothing more than extend the same kind of authority to Bush that Congress had granted to Clinton. It presented to Saddam Hussein a credible threat that the UN resolutions would be enforced.
Then Bush fucked things up, as usual. Instead of relying on inspections that would keep Iraq disarmed–* and which were working,* as is clear now–he went straight to war, pulling the inspectors on a pretense and mobilizing a force one-third the size of the coalition force that ousted Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.
So you can obsess over whether Kerry ‘weasels’ or not. But you aren’t foolish enough to imply that Kerry is responsible for putting our troops in Iraq, are you? When, in fact, Kerry’s only mistake was that he trusted the president.
I would like to see GW go to the UN and say, “I was entirely wrong in going into Iraq.” And I would like to see him go to Iraq and say something like, “I have made a terrible mistake and I would like to apologize for it. From now on, US forces will be under the direct command of US officers but they will take their policies from you and our Generals will take the steps you think are needed to correct my mess.”
Hell, if GW can fantasize about creating by force an independent and democratic Iraq, I can fantasize about GW finally admitting that he is a total fuckup.
I’d use some stronger language but there are women and children present.
Really? Can we get a cite for that? When did the authority to Clinton [ie, to the president] expire such that it had to be “extended”?
Bush bears primary responsibility for the Iraq War. No ifs, ands or buts about that. However, Kerry supported the war IMO mostly out of political expediency. He doesn’t get a pass from me just because he was too much of a coward to stand on principle.
