I’m a supporter, and I’ve had many second thoughts. Everybody but fanatics have second thoughts. But just showing interest for the second thoughts from one side of the table smells to me more like an exercise in righteous self congratulation than an honest and open interest. How about making it a thread where everybody, supporter and opposed (surely some of you must have had second thoughts too!), could provide their second thoughts – that to me would be much more interesting and honest. Perhaps even staring with yourself?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
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”?
When he left office. The resolution was simply a formal statement of solidarity for the president to enforce the UN resolutions. It was essentially symbolic, and it maintained the continuity of resolve that lasted throughout the Clinton administration. Nobody here is arguing that the invasion is ‘illegal’, in the sense that the constitution was violated; the CinC can do whatever he wants with regard to the armed forces. Clinton used his power to enforce the no-fly zones and economic sanctions. The result was a neutered and impotent dictatorship that was no threat to its neighbors, much less the USA.
It’s great that you can read Kerry’s mind. In my opinion, his vote was pretty . . . responsible, I guess is the word I’m looking for; voting against the resolution would have signaled to Hussein that since Clinton was gone, he was free to do what he wished. Bush knew this and pretty much boxed everyone in, politically. He ruthlessly exploited the situation, conflated Iraq with the 9/11 perpetrators, used the resolution vote as political cover, sabotaged all efforts to resolve the WMD issue via inspectors (and pretty much kneecapped whatever respectability Colin Powell had left), and did basically everything but lead the troops out of Kuwait himself on a white charger, in a silver helmet. (He had National Guard commitments that weekend.)
Let me ask you this: If what Kerry did smacks of political expediency, what do you make of what Dubya did? Do you honestly think that it never occurred to him that starting a war might . . . I dunno . . . help him win re-election? Do you actually believe the deeds of the two men are comparable?
Go for it! If any original opponents of the Iraq war have become war supporters, I’d like to hear your opinions also. I don’t suspect that the number would be very high, but who knows?
Myself, I was against this war from the very beginning. As more information about the decision to go to war and lack of planning becomes available, as I watch Bushco stumble from one crisis to the next (most of which is due to their own doing), as I see no interest nor ability in acknowledging that they made any mistakes, I only gain stronger confirmation that the wrong decision was made for the wrong reasons.
I don’t think that is a fair characterization. I’d suggest you might want to look through this archive of Pat Buchannan articles.
In this one, I believe he states what his philosophy is, and surprisingly, I agree with him:
Somewhat related article in the decidedly non-liberal Weekly Standard. I was also amused to see that article’s writer, an editor for the publication, agree with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show last night that Bush had driven the war on terror “into a ditch,” only to immediately backpedal and wryly suggest that Stewart had “tricked” him into saying that. 
I am bereft, pals and gals. I have recently come across photos that entirely confirm John M.'s thesis. I present these facts to you with a heavy heart.
They are photos of the type not seen in the liberal media, which slavishly concentrate on his face and upper torso, avoiding all together the sorts of full body shots we commonly see depicting The Leader. In the first, we see Sen Kerry from a distance of approximately 50 feet, walking away from the observer. Look closely at where has trod: flowers do not spring up full grown from his footsteps. While it is painful to have one’s illusions shattered, it is necessary for growth.
In the second photo, we have what appears to be an entirely ordinary photo of a man splashing through a shallow rain puddle in what surely must be wing-tips. But note: he splashes through the water in a manner entirely typical of the ordinary mortal, he does not trod upon the surface of the water!
The choice couldn’t be clearer: GeeDubya is a man of proven character, an entirely reliable commodity: vain, stubborn, mendacious and shallow. Whereas on the other hand we have Sen Kerry who does not bestride the world like a collossus!
A stark comparison, to be sure.
Hmm, if all Congressional resolutions stay in effect indefinitely, regardless of changes of circumstances, then a lot of things are possible. Bush could go back to Vietnam and finish off that little bit of unfinished business, too, for instance. Maybe that position needs a little more work too, John?
I can imagine the debate you want, and Bush being asked about his own role in that resolution, too (be careful what you wish for): “My opponent made a grave error in judgment, calling into question his fitness for the highest office in the land. He actually thought, can you imagine, that I might have actually not have been lying about those WMD’s, or about my commitment to international law, or my intentions to invade Iraq regardless of any of that. How could anyone even think of voting for a man dumb enough to believe me?”
Well, try to imagine that in disjointed fragments with one and two-syllable words. Or remember the sage words of Otter in Animal House: “You fucked up! You trusted us!”
You’ve got to be kdding. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that Congress had authorized the use of force (ie, war) against Iraq in a resolution that expired when Clinton left office? And we’re supposed to take your word for that, without a cite? I suppose you’ll be trying to sell us a bridge next, too.
Why would he think starting a war with SH would win him re-election? The only person who ever did this (his father) lost his re-election bid. Whatever reasons Bush II had for starting the war, I doubt that re-election was one of them. It’s possible, of course, but it doesn’t make much sense.
Look, Bush will have plenty of question to answer or this subject, not the least of which will be “Where are the WMDs?” And you can rant against Bush all you want-- I’m not going to argue with you on that point. All I said was I will be waiting to see what Kerry’s answer to the question will be. It has nothing to do with Bush. In fact, let me suggest one more twist on the question: “Mr. Kerry, looking back over the last 15 years or so do you think it was correct for you to have voted against Gulf War I and for Gulf War II, and if so, why?”
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Again, my statement about Kerry’s vote is independent of anything you might think or say about Bush. You can say that Bush is the most evil man who ever lived. It doesn’t matter. I’m not talking about Bush. I’m saying that Kerry knew full well he was authorizing Bush to make war on Iraq, based on Bush’s judgement alone. Congress has the authority to wage war. The resolution we are talking about was one in which Congress gave that authority to the president, to exercise as he chose. If Kerry in fact thought that Bush would not take the opportunity, then I submit he (Kerry) is too stupid to be president.
Would you, Senator 'luci, have voted for the resolution?
We seem to be wandering quite far off topic. This isn’t about WHO knowingly or mistakenly authorized war on Iraq but rather whether anyone’s opinions on this war have been changed by events, news, peer pressure, SDMB postings/participation, new knowledge or whatever. Thanks!
True. So why don’t you address the issues raised about your OP-- ie, that you are citing people who “changed” their position who in fact never supported the war in the first place, or otherwise have not actually withdrawn support?
How about you stick to the subject, as restated in post #30 or move on?
Dammit, you *do * know better than that. You must. Read the text. “As he chose” my tuchis. “As stated in the bill” would be correct. Cut the shit, pal.
You really do mean that, don’t you? Per that argument, this might be a good Bush campaign slogan:
"How can America trust a man who’s so dumb he’d trust me?"
Perhaps you can understand how that might not be convincing to the still-undecided.
Huh?
If you look at the banner at the top of the page, this board is about “fighting ignorance”. Your OP has factual errors in it, so don’t be surprised if you get called on that. In order to debate your thesis, we need to get the facts straight. I’ll be happy to “move on” once you respond to the OP challenges by either showing your original statements were correct, or striking them from the record as being false.
You know, John, you’re presenting an exceedingly warped defense of Bush in this thread. I mean really - you’re claiming Kerry’s unfit to be president because he trusted a sitting president to exercise diplomatic options before resorting to force. How in the Nine Hells can it possibly be a greater indictment of Kerry than it is of Bush that Bush might reasonably have been predicted to stampede past the diplomatic options straight to war? I mean, really! “Kerry is unfit to be president because he voted for a resolution which was perfectly reasonable. However, the president unreasonably but predictably urinated all over the letter and spirit of that resolution. Therefore, we must clearly vote for the incumbent.”
WTF?!? 
Not at all. I think you and some others are interpreting an attack on Kerry as a defense of Bush. I haven’t said anything at all about Bush. All I said was I was looking forward to see Kerry squirm when he had to answer a certain question. I like to see all politicians squirm.
Farnkly, if the election were held today, I’d be more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush. But that doesn’t mean I think the guy (Kerry) has no flaws. And it certainly doesn’t mean that any time I point out one of those flaws that I’m “defending Bush”. Just as it’s equally true that when I point out one of Bush’s flaws, I’m not “defending Kerry”.
Ah. My apologies for misunderstanding you. Still and all, I’d have to say “He trusted the president to live up to Congress’ resolution” is not particularly damning, as things go. I’d be far more concerned about the protectionist noises Kerry’s making, myself. But anyways, I thought this thread was supposed to be about having second thoughts about Iraq, not about nitpicking at Kerry’s voting record on foreign policy.
Life is a journey of fascinating discovery. One lives and learns.
Apparently, Congress didn’t vote for Iraq invasion. I didn’t know that. Apparently, Congress voted to give Bush just enough authority to force Saddam come finally and absolutely Clean. Bush was authorized strictly to draw his six-shooter, level it dead between Saddam’s cheating eyes and drawl “Let’s have it!” But under no cicumstances was he authorized to pull the trigger. That would be unthinkable, may be un-American even.
Which brings up a possibility that old fox like Saddam wouldn’t give a damn in that case. Which can be answered that it was an understood thing between the Congress and POTUS only. Which can be countered that Saddam was not that stupid. Which can be defied that it was too hush-hush for him to get any clue…
Well, if you read my first post about Kerry it was to ask whether he had changed his mind and was having second thoughts. Then the attack dogs came out.
But “As stated in the bill” is simply that the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House and PResident Pro tem of the Senate “***his determination ***” that etc. etc.
Nowhere does it say that the president will give peace a chance or whatever it is that you guys seem to think it says. It simply says that the president has to make a determination and that he has to notify congress before or very soon after using force against Iraq.
As to the OP, I am one who was slightly opposed to the war in the begining, but has reluctantly changed his position.