# Why Bush/Cheney continue to say Kerry voted for the war **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151 "2004-10-08T03:24:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/21 "2004-10-08T15:15:40Z")
I just looked at the text of the resolution again. Here’s the devil that gives the President as much leeway as he wants: > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > > (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to– > > (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. > > (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that– > > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or **(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq** That’s the killer, and the line they should have left out. Proving that peaceful means will not defend us from Saddam’s continuing threat is pretty hard to show. But it’s reeeeaaal easy to say that peaceful means are “not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions”. “That peace thing? Yeah, I decided that didn’t look like it was going to work.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/22 "2004-10-08T15:18:29Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > And, what do you make of Bush’s statements about the resolution: Lies, deceptions, pretty rhetoric that was meant to provide cover for Senators and Reps who wanted to vote to go to war but didn’t want to be seen as voting to go to war? [And, if the latter was true, why was Bush so concerned about providing this cover?] > > I need you to give me a complete story that makes sense, not just vague claims. I think the resolution was approved because it was politically expedient to vote for it. But, without offering some sort of cover, Bush would never have mustered enough votes for the thing to pass. It’s my opinion that those who voted in favor of the resolution knew it was virtually a vote for war. They knew Bush and his feelings about Saddam. They should have been able to anticipate, with a high degree of probability, what action he would take. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/23 "2004-10-08T15:35:22Z")
> [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > It’s my opinion that those who voted in favor of the resolution knew it was virtually a vote for war. They knew Bush and his feelings about Saddam. They should have been able to anticipate, with a high degree of probability, what action he would take. So, what you are in essence saying is that you think they should have known that Bush was a liar who did not mean at all what he said about exhausting diplomatic means and keeping the peace and all that bullshit? Well, I tend to agree with you on that. Bush had clearly shown himself over and over again to be a liar at that point. On the other hand, saying that you are voting against the resolution because you don’t trust our President is a rather difficult position to take, is it not? And, it leaves you open to the charge that you trust Saddam Hussein more than you trust our president. (Of course, in retrospect, you’d be right but almost noone, not even most of us who were against the resolution, believed that Saddam was necessarily telling what was closer to the truth than Bush…We just thought the truth was somewhere in between.) So, I guess Bush should go around saying “Kerry effectively voted for the war because he should have known that I was a liar.” That would be an interesting argument for him to make. And, unlike his current arguments, at least an honest one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/24 "2004-10-08T15:39:15Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > So, what you are in essence saying is that you think they should have known that Bush was a liar who did not mean at all what he said about exhausting diplomatic means and keeping the peace and all that bullshit? Well, I tend to agree with you on that. Bush had clearly shown himself over and over again to be a liar at that point. You are not going to pursuade anyone with the “liar” accusation. Bush simply had a different interpretation of what he thought the end of the diplomatic road was. And, of course, it doesn’t help Kerry that he said just a few months ago that he’d vote for the resolution even if he knew everything he knew now (ie, a few months ago). Why do you suppose he said that? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/25 "2004-10-08T15:47:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can pretty much agree with that, although it was very clear early on (either right before or right after the resolution passed) that the French, Germans and Russians were not going to authorize the use of force, so I don’t see how anyone could have thought they would be in on the coalition. Well, it may have been very clear to you. I am not so sure how clear it was to the rest of us. What is clear is that these countries would, at the very least, really hold Bush’s feet to the fire on exhausting all diplomatic options and letting the inspections run their course. In this respect, they were, in hindsight, 100% on the right side. > [@](#): > > And Kerry’s own voting record on Iraq is one of the main reasons I question his motives. He had no problem voting against the Desert Storm resolution, which DID include a broad coalition. Well, I don’t see how this follows. It was a very different situation. And, 9/11 did change people’s views on dangers. Look at former Senator Hatfield who apparently went from strong dove to supporting GW. > [@](#): > > He also had no problem registering what he called a protest vote against the $87B appropriations bill. Well, the protest had to do with how it was being funded…Or not being funded…And, how the President was or was not trying to get more help from other nations. > [@](#): > > Why, then, since he must have known that the authorization for force would passs the Senate, did he not vote consistently with his other votes on the issue? He could’ve registered a protest vote and it wouldn’t have affected the outcome. So, I guess you have appointed yourself head of the committee to decide what constitutes a consistent vote? Apparently, people have to vote all one way or the other. It is inconsistent if one supports some authorizations to use force and not others, etc? > [@](#): > > You are not going to pursuade anyone with the “liar” accusation. Bush simply had a different interpretation of what he thought the end of the diplomatic road was. Oh boy was it ever a different interpretation!! Can you explain to me what that interpretation must have been, in reference to what was actually going on in Iraq with the inspections and all, so that I can understand it? > [@](#): > > And, of course, it doesn’t help Kerry that he said just a few months ago that he’d vote for the resolution even if he knew everything he knew now (ie, a few months ago). Why do you suppose he said that? Well, to be honest, that is the one statement of Kerry’s that I don’t understand. On the other hand, I don’t understand the question that he was answering either. It was an ill-posed question since it was unclear what was meant by this. (If we really knew what we knew, what arguments would Bush have used in asking for the resolution?) He should have said it was an ill-posed question and asked for clarification. I assume that he didn’t do that because he was worried that this would give Bush another chance to make him appear as flip-flopping or whatever. And, that was a mistake on his part. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/26 "2004-10-08T15:53:24Z")
He was wrong. Simply put, he thought it was important, on principle, that a President in a situation such as existed, or at least he was led to believe existed, should have all the cards in his hand. He has a point: for good or ill, GW was the President. A sorry excuse for one, but the only one we had. Pretty simple, really: you trust the President because he is the President. If it turns out that he is unworthy of that trust, you chuck him out. Now, on this point I strongly disagree with Kerry. I wouldn’t have trusted GW any further than I could throw him. But if he had done what he said he was going to do…exhaust all peaceful means, etc…this all might have gone very well indeed. We might have been assured of Iraq’s weakness, and we would stand before the world as a sober and reasoning people, firm and determined but amenable to council and negotiation. Instead of, well, what we got now. Which bites it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/27 "2004-10-08T16:00:11Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, I don’t see how this follows. It was a very different situation. And, 9/11 did change people’s views on dangers. Look at former Senator Hatfield who apparently went from strong dove to supporting GW. I disagree. I think the Desert Storm situation was much more cut and dry. Yes, 9/11 did chance people’s views. That is the whole point that Bush makes. I’m not saying I agree with him, but I’m saying I see where he’s coming from. A lot of people feel the same way. > [@](#): > > Well, the protest had to do with how it was being funded…Or not being funded…And, how the President was or was not trying to get more help from other nations. Fine. But you seem to be saying that that is the ONLY reason a Senator can register a protest vote. How about the fact that no UNSC apporval was required? That’s a perfectly valid reason to register a protest vote. > [@](#): > > So, I guess you have appointed yourself head of the committee to decide what constitutes a consistent vote? Apparently, people have to vote all one way or the other. It is inconsistent if one supports some authorizations to use force and not others, etc? I won’t respond to that strawman argument. > [@](#): > > Oh boy was it ever a different interpretation!! Can you explain to me what that interpretation must have been, in reference to what was actually going on in Iraq with the inspections and all, so that I can understand it? That SH was playing games with the UN and had no intention of cooperating. That was, I think, a very reasonable conclusion to come to. > [@](#): > > Well, to be honest, that is the one statement of Kerry’s that I don’t understand. On the other hand, I don’t understand the question that he was answering either. It was an ill-posed question since it was unclear what was meant by this. (If we really knew what we knew, what arguments would Bush have used in asking for the resolution?) > > He should have said it was an ill-posed question and asked for clarification. I assume that he didn’t do that because he was worried that this would give Bush another chance to make him appear as flip-flopping or whatever. And, that was a mistake on his part. And he contintues to justify that statement even today. If it’s pure politics, fine-- I can understand that. But it just leaves him open to charges that other statements and actions of his were pure politics, too, including his vote for the original authorization in '02. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/28 "2004-10-08T16:05:31Z")
At it’s heart, the statement is political shorthand designed to appeal to the fabulously uninformed in a language they can understand. Both sides do it…it’s just annoying to hear from the side you happen to disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/29 "2004-10-08T16:13:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That SH was playing games with the UN and had no intention of cooperating. That was, I think, a very reasonable conclusion to come to. Well, I gave you the links to Hans Blix’s presentation before the U.N. and from there you can get to the presentation of the head of the IAEA and Colin Powell’s response. Go ahead…Knock yourself out. Show us on the basis of that evidence how it was such a reasonable conclusion to come to! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/30 "2004-10-08T16:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq’s declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence. From your cite. SH was supposed to come completely clean. He had 12 years to do so, and Blix is saying that he thinks they have not. Bush decided that was the end of the road. I suppose you can argue that more than 12 years is needed, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/31 "2004-10-08T17:50:22Z")
**John Mace** , with regards to France, Germany, and Russia, please note that the administration, immediately after gaining the US resolution, were able to get unanimous UNSC approval for 1441. The record is quite clear that they were prepared to hold Saddam’s feet to the fire. The Blix comments you quote suggest that even Hans suspected that Saddam had not come completely clean. But Blix also was clear that he could not find any conclusive evidence that Saddam was in violation of 1441 (or previous UNSC resolutions). Bush came to the conclusion that Saddam was not in compliance. Chirac et al were not comfortable that the burden of proof had been met. Reasonable people questioned why Bush was hellbent in going to war immediately, and recommended that the UNSC inspections continue. Bush then began to push the case that Iraq represented “a grave and growing” threat, that demanded immediate action. That was his determination, and I can’t see why you don’t feel it was reasonable for anyone, especially John Kerry, to disagree with that assessment. One can be supportive of the US resolution, it’s authorizations, and it’s limits, while still disagreeing with Bush’s decision to invoke it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/32 "2004-10-08T17:56:48Z")
Thanks for this thread, **jshore** , because I’ve been wondering the exact same thing for a while now. What I don’t understand is why Kerry didn’t pound that out quickly and concisely in the last debate. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/33 "2004-10-08T18:12:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can pretty much agree with that, although it was very clear early on (either right before or right after the resolution passed) that the French, Germans and Russians were not going to authorize the use of force, so I don’t see how anyone could have thought they would be in on the coalition. This isn’t quite correct. The objection of the three countries you cite was to passing a UNSC resolution making possible an _automatic_ war. Here’s a link to a useful thread from a year and a half or so discussing such issues, and an excellent summary of the argument by **AZCowboy** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AZCowboy in [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=179185&page=3&pp=50](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=179185&page=3&pp=50) \* > > The issue of automaticity (allowing the US to determine if Iraq was in non-compliance unilaterally, and authorize force), goes all the way back to 1998. France, Russia, and China resisted all previous efforts for a UN resolution with automaticity. The original draft of 1441 included automaticity. The US agreed to remove it, and eventually received unanimous support for 1441. > > Agreeing to automaticity would have effectively handed the power and authority of the UNSC over to the US. It should be of no surprise that neither France, Russia, or China would support it (even at the risk of pissing off the world’s only remaining superpower). > > 1441 required that Iraq readmit the UN inspectors. The US administration stated that Iraq wouldn’t let them in, but they did. It also required that Iraq provide a complete disclosure of their WoMD. However, failure to provide a complete disclosure wasn’t a violation. To be considered a violation, Iraq would also have to fail to cooperate with the inspectors to mitigate the violation. The US originally wanted an incomplete disclosure to be considered a violation. But they agreed to change the resolution in order to gain support. > > The inspectors found violations (albeit minor). Iraq begrudginly cooperated with the destruction of the al-Samoud missiles. The inspectors had a long list of additional inspection and verification tasks remaining, when the US announced they were about to invade, and the UNSC recalled the inspectors. > > France’s position was entirely consistent with the agreement reached with the US in 1441. > > Clearly, Bush gambled that Iraq wouldn’t admit the inspectors, or if they did, that the inspectors would quickly find violations, particularly with help from US intelligence. That didn’t happen. France was especially demonized by the US and UK in this matter. Here for the record are the actual words of de Villepin at the Security Council as quoted by me in a thread from early 2003: > [@](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170882&perpage=50&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170882&perpage=50&pagenumber=2) > > France’s actual position, as stated by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was that “France will not let a resolution pass that authorises the _automatic_ use of force” (my emphasis). He also said, quite rightfully as we are seeing so far, that “The use of force risks aggravating grudges and hatred, stoking a clash of identities, a confrontation between cultures which it is precisely the responsibility of our generation to avoid.” These two threads contain analyses of the resolutions involved and the evidence available (or, not available) in the Iraq affair, among other things. Your argument about Saddam coming clean in 12 years is also addressed in both; basically the point was that the US caused UN inspections to be cut short just at the time they were gathering valuable momentum and cooperation. The inspections did not proceed continuously for 12 years, they were dogged by interruptions and problems, including US espionage allegations and Saddam’s somewhat understandably indignant reactions. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/34 "2004-10-08T18:43:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > From your cite. SH was supposed to come completely clean. He had 12 years to do so, and Blix is saying that he thinks they have not. Bush decided that was the end of the road. I suppose you can argue that more than 12 years is needed, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that it’s not. So, you have cherry-picked the one most damning quote in the entire presentation that Blix gave in which he generally said that the Iraqis were being cooperative and that the inspectors were able to go where they wanted. For exampl, here is what Bush said at the beginning of his presentation: > [@](#): > > Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. > > Some practical matters which were not settled by the talks Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei and I had with Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in Resolution 1441 have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. > > Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the “no-fly” zones were overcome. > > This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. And, of course, we know almost for sure now that the weapons really were destroyed. And, as far as I know, there is no documentary materials that have come to light on this that were withheld from us. It could simply be that Blix was wrong in his hypothesis that more documentary evidence should exist. So, yes, if you are willing to cherrypick one quote from Blix, then perhaps you can find a justification to go to war. But, that is just the point. The President’s job is not to cherry-pick the evidence but to consider the totality of the evidence. Bush clearly didn’t do that and we now know that, as a result, he was wrong…very wrong…on what he suspected. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/35 "2004-10-08T18:58:52Z")
One other point: I think it is entirely reasonable to criticize John Kerry’s (and all other consenting Congressmen’s) vote to support the use of force resolution, effectively “handing over the keys to Bush”. But it seems to me that one can only be critical of that decision if you also conclude that Bush was unworthy of having that responsibility. Kerry’s failure was to place trust in the judgement of George W. Bush. With regards to Kerry’s statement that he still supports that decision, I understood he was saying that on issues of national security, it is important for Congress to trust the judgement of the President to exercise his authority wisely, understanding that the ultimate arbiter of that judgement is the American people. And Kerry now hopes the American people will exercise their better judgement on election day. I have little to no doubt that Kerry hopes, should he find himself in a similar position within the next eight years, that Congress will trust him with the same power. If he now takes the position that Congress should never trust the President with that power, he may find himself hamstrung in the coming years. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/36 "2004-10-08T19:59:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > From your cite. SH was supposed to come completely clean. He had 12 years to do so, and Blix is saying that he thinks they have not. Bush decided that was the end of the road. I suppose you can argue that more than 12 years is needed, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that it’s not. Oh, and Blix discussed the issue of how much more time he needed too: > [@](#): > > How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can – cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. > > Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/37 "2004-10-09T00:49:10Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > One other point: I think it is entirely reasonable to criticize John Kerry’s (and all other consenting Congressmen’s) vote to support the use of force resolution, effectively “handing over the keys to Bush”. But it seems to me that one can only be critical of that decision if you also conclude that Bush was unworthy of having that responsibility. Kerry’s failure was to place trust in the judgement of George W. Bush. That’s… harsh. The president should have such authority. Kerry believes that. Hell, I believe that. That’s part of heading the executive branch of government. If the use of force is outlined like it was, it seems to me that it was reasonable to vote for the resolution. Well, reasonable people could disagree, at any rate. > [@](#): > > With regards to Kerry’s statement that he still supports that decision, I understood he was saying that on issues of national security, it is important for Congress to trust the judgement of the President to exercise his authority wisely, understanding that the ultimate arbiter of that judgement is the American people. Exactly. I think this is critical. At some level, we have to trust that elected officials are going to be acting accordingly. Congress set certain terms, and I think it is fair to say that the president failed to give a good faith effort to meet those terms. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/38 "2004-10-09T01:00:21Z")
Respectfully, I don’t think we can cut our congressho’s that much slack. It was pretty clear to me what was cooking, and I’ve been told I’m not that smart. Now if me and Paul Wellstone were both this smart, how come the others didn’t catch on? 'Cause they’re whores. They knew if they opposed such authorization with the mid-term election coming, they were vulnerable. They caved. They tried to include some face-saving verbage, but they caved. Its not all GeeDubya, there’s a whole bunch of folks got some 'splaining to do. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/39 "2004-10-09T01:16:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Respectfully, I don’t think we can cut our congressho’s that much slack. It was pretty clear to me what was cooking, and I’ve been told I’m not that smart. Now if me and Paul Wellstone were both this smart, how come the others didn’t catch on? Well, one, it wasn’t a unanimous vote, and two, you and Paul aren’t the only two. But I feel that it was a point reasonable people could have disagreed on, so personally I will cut congress much more slack than I cut Bush. > [@](#): > > 'Cause they’re whores. Hush. All politicians in a democracy are fine, upstanding individuals who only say what they mean, regardless of whether they’ll be reelected or not. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151/40 "2004-10-09T01:37:26Z")
I agree. It was rather clear from the beginning of Bush’s term that he had his sights on Iraq. When Blix & co. kept coming up empty while BushCo. ratcheted up the threat and urgency level, it was pretty clear to me and just about everyone I work with that war was inevitable. I know very few people who are surprised that no WMD’s were found, nor do I know many who thoughts they were likely to be found before we went to war. Enough was know about the neocon. agenda at that point to guess that a war in Iraq fit into a large geopolitical plan, and that the only connection to 9/11 was as a great facilitator. And we’re just a bunch of silly lab monkeys, without any security clearance, and not a seasoned politician among us. We read the papers and news magazines, maybe a few books here and there. So, how come I and everyone at my office around the water cooler could accurately predict the outcome of the Iraq WMD debacle, and declare confidently that the Joint Resolution was a Very Bad Thing, and yet a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe can’t? How is it that said member can assert he would do it all the same again, yet care that “Bush misled us”? Bush lied, no question; but so did Kerry. The only plausible explanation for his bizarre behavior is that he voted with his political rather than moral instincts (if he has any of the latter), figuring, perhaps rightly, that having presiential ambitions yet appearing unpatriotic in the aftermath of 9/11 would be mutually exclusive. I’m guessing another esteemed Senator, Hillary Clinton, made much the same decision, though she obviously is thinking way ahead. It strains credibility, in my mind, that they could have been so easily misled. Hence, I can only conclude they practiced craven pandery. Bush and Cheney harp on Kerry’s vote because he most certainly did vote for the War. There’s no other practical interpretation of events, and I rather suspect, given Kerry’s evolving “consistency”, that his earliest statements entering the campaign is that he most definitely did try to “have it both” ways when popular support for the war began to wane. Now that popular support has further eroded, he feels safer taking Bush to task for a War he is complicit in, to some degree. Certainly he is not as culpable as Bush, but he is far from innocent. Either that, or he’s stupid. Take your pick. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-cheney-continue-to-say-kerry-voted-for-the-war/268151.md?page=3)