Someone help me out here.

Did the Senators get more detailed bs from the administration in the lead up to the IWR vote? I'm pretty sure the intel committee did, but did the rest of the senators? Kerry get's a lot of crap for IWR and from what I have seen he should not have voted for it, but Kerry is smarter than I am, and I have no reason to doubt his integrity, because everything he has done other than voting for IWR has been pretty solid. So did the senators get more info than the general public or were they leaked info from the intel committee members?

I've seen this and it is a good explanation, and I think it goes a long way to explain his vote. But still, is there more to it?

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career, Kerry said. I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for.

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn�t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

*I'm sorry to dredge this up again, but it's really been bothering me, and now there's a post in GDP about a father of one of the soldiers killed in Iraq blaming the * administration as well as the dems who voted for IWR for this mess ...so I've got to try and understand*

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/?

It's a great site, and I can't imagine it misses much of anything.

but it's bookmarked now. I looked through the Q and A and a few of his speeches, but I don't know. Why did he believe Bush when he said that Saddam needed to be disarmed? Seriously, Bush is the biggest POS liar ever. And Kerry is smart. I've got to wonder what the senators, especially the dems who voted for IWR, were told.

says Rumsfeld showed them pictures of bunkers etc where WMDs were stored, Said they knew where 85% of the WMDs were, etc etc etc. Clark said was all very believable. This was on a meet the press interview during primary 2004. No doubt there were similar briefings for senate etc. I remember reading that DiFi planned to vote against IWR but came out of a briefing and switched her vote. sorry I am too lazy to google any of this for you, but it will give you a start.

It also helps to remember that Kerry has always been big on nuclear non-proliferation. and that bush claimed that it was war as a last resort.

I also believe that Colin Powell probably gave Kerry and others assurances that diplomacy would rule out. . .that they needed the threat to get things moving. Sadly Colin was out of the loop. . .

for googling later. I wonder if I can find a copy of that meet the press interview anywhere.

Jan 25 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/


MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. This is something you wrote in The Times of London, April 5, 2003: "...the military tasks will not be over until we get the weapons of mass destruction. They are there in Iraq, somewhere."

How could you, president, President Clinton, the CIA, the British--How could everyone be so wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think the intelligence community needs to tell us that. But I think it's more than the intelligence community, because I think what this administration has done is play politics with intelligence, and really lean on the intelligence community to come up with the answers they've sought. So a lot of us...

MR. RUSSERT: That's a serious charge.

GEN. CLARK: A lot of us who have not been privy to secret intelligence simply listened to what people told us. Secretary of state--Rumsfeld told a group of retired generals shortly before the war, he said, "I know where 30 percent of the weapons of mass destruction are." Now, when the secretary of defense tells you something like that, you have a tendency to believe him.

MR. RUSSERT: What evidence do you have that politics were played with the intelligence services?

GEN. CLARK: Well, let's look at it this way. What's happened in the last few days is that there was a memo that came out of the Department of Defense that was sent over to the Congress, that was leaked, highly classified, sensitive, compartmented intelligence, leaked and published in a Weekly Standard. Now, the standard rule on anything like this is never to confirm it because if you confirm something like this, you're giving away maybe sources and methods. The vice president said that that was the best explanation of the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. So he's essentially using a leaked memo to confirm his predisposition to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That's playing politics with national security. It risks our intelligence community, our sources and methods, it's wrong. And as president I won't tolerate that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that in the future, if the president of the United States, President Bush or any president, went forward and said, "North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran has nuclear weapons. We have to do something about it," people in the world or in the United States would accept that at face value?

GEN. CLARK: They won't, Tim, because this administration has hyped the intelligence to get us into Iraq. The president still didn't admit the truth in the State of the Union speech that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction there. David Kay said there weren't when he gave up his position. And we've damaged the credibility of the presidency, we've damaged our national credibility on this issue of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. "Anti-war" Howard Dean, at the time, had pretty much the same position on Iraq as Kerry, Edwards, and Clark.

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
- Howard Dean (Feb. 2003)

Here's a good article (by Tom Oliphant :loveya: ) about Dean's misleading statements about the Iraq war - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

Choice quote: "One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat."



Oh, and here are yet more damning quotes straight from the horse's mouth:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." - Howard Dean on Face the Nation, September 29th, 2002.

"I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given." - Howard Dean, February 2003.

I want to hear some fucking consistency from these anti-warriors here at DU. Goddamn it, if they're going to hate Kerry until kingdom come about this stupid war, then they need to hate Dean too, because by their twisted logic, he supported it JUST AS MUCH - the only difference being, he did not commit the cardinal sin of being a senator and being forced to back up his rhetoric with action.

searching my own post to find the MTP transcript I came across this thread, and this post that is relevant to your point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=204206&mesg_id=205292

The whole thread is interesting in a sordid time warp kinda way.

Most of the strident voices for Kerry (minus you, you awesome guy you) have been TS'd, while most of the strident Deaniacs are still here.

Interesting, that. :shrug:

and going thru the thread and looking at profiles just now I must admit I shed a tear or two over some folks I didn't realize were tombstoned. . .

Sometimes I'm really relieved to have missed all of that.

Beavis and Butthead when ever somebody mentions Skull and Bone(r)s.

And they say the internet doesn't rot your brain.

no better way to deal with that crap than humor. Some of these people will grasp at anything they can find to attack anyone who is not their candidate, including Skull and Bones. And I think some have been so inundated with information and scandals and conspiracy theories they just don't know what to make of anything anymore.

It also does show to Clark's credit the difference between him and Dean - Clark admitted in 2004, that he would likely have voted for the IWR.

Although it is fighting an old battle that was fought last year - a list of Kerry's , Dean's, (and anyone else interesting) comments from Oct, 2002 to Mar, 2003 mwould be interesting. I know Kerry argued against attacking in Feb or March 2003 - the timing may be interesting, because Dean's February comments actually sound less anti-war than Kerry's. However, even if it could be shown - people will choose to remain unconvinced. (Can you imagine how befuddled Kerry would have been if in early 2001, an angel would have told him he would get the nomination for President, but some liberals would hate him for not being liberal and being too pro-war - while they were happy with Howard Dean?)

Bush had not had that much time to lie. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to believe that an entire administration would lie in this way. This is different than a cover up situation, where something bad has already been done and everyone lies to protect people they still owe loyalty too.

The other thing was, Hussein as Kerry said DID have a large number of weapons that were found and destroyed and as there were no inspectors for 4 years. When Bush started in the summer of 2002 with his build up in the Persian Gulf, Kerry was one of the many voices arguing that Bush could not use the vote letting him fight the war on terror to attack Iraq and that a unilateral war was wrong. He wrote an editorial in September 2002 that argued that Bush needed to go through the UN and go through Congress.

The Bush administration cleverly went to Congress first with Powell arguing that Bush would have no leverage in the UN if he didn't have the support of Congress. This in addition to the WMD lies and Powell's and Bush's assurances that this didn't mean war necessarily may have had impact.

The question is why did Kerry trust him when Kennedy, Byrd, and others didn't. Part might be as you said that Kerry on the SFRC was very concerned about loose WMD. (although I think Feingold voted against) Kerry strongly wanted Bush to go to the UN.

One thing no one seems to consider is what would have happened if the vote lost. Bush had already built up the number of soldiers in Iraq. Bush getting the IWR and going to the UN resulted in Saddam letting the inspectors in and even destroying of their best missiles.
While this was happening, Bush complained about the inspectors not doing their job and continued on to war. In February, Kerry (among others) was very visible arguing to let the inspectors have more time. Bush could have claimed a real victory with the destruction of the missiles and a careful inspection. He plain and simple wanted war.

If the vote lost, Bush might not have gone to the UN. He and Britain would likely have still gone to war - after we or they were attacked while "enforcing the no fly zone" He would have used his powers as CIC and the war on terror. (Rove would likely have claimed that the war could have been averted if the Democrats hadn't hampered Bush's efforts to get inspectors back in.)

In the end, the IWR probably accomplished 4 things:
- It probably delayed the war by about 4 or 5 months
- It did result in getting some cover of UN approval
- It made the war marginally easier by destroying some of Iraq's weapons - Iraq essentially had no air power.
- Politically, it has split the Democrats. It really saddens me when they assign to Kerry and others responsibility for the war.

I posted a similar response below. :hi:

If Bush hadn't been pushed to the UN, we never would have known the extent to which he was willing to go for his war. We would never have had the IAEA and Blix saying every "lead" the US presented was bogus. Wouldn't have had Powell's speech, full of lies. Wouldn't have had Bush's Declaration to Congress, which said Iraq was a grave threat and ALL peaceful means had been tried, which wasn't true.

With no IWR, Bush could have gone to war in Oct 2002, no inspectors, nothing. Then he really would have had cover because he could just say Iraq should have let the inspectors in and then we would have known for sure.

The IWR was the correct thing to do, politically, diplomatically and strategically. We could have used it to find out the truth if Bush had chosen to. To expose him if he chose to be a unilateral cowboy. To remove his original plan, which was to blame Saddam. Except, frankly, Howard Dean fucked it all up.

I think by the general election most of the LW was holding their colective nose while quietly (for them) supporting Kerry. The more I learn of Dean, the more I appreciate the honesty of someone like Kerry.

I love the way you have called people on the combination of the DU obsession with the DSM and their insistance that the IWR was equivilent to voting for war. I really don't know why they want to expand the Democrats' guilt.

I was okay with Dean until the 16 words. It was liked we finally had Bush and we had all these great Dems to go after him. (Except Lieberman.) What does Dean do? Attacks the Dems as much as Bush. I was SO PISSED. And that was the end of Howard Dean for me. I'm generally not one to say that Dean created the attacks Rove used on Kerry, because the same would have been true if Dean had won. Instead of flip flops, we'd have seen waffles, ala Waffle Powered Howard. I tolerate him, I wish him well, but it seems to me he's better at attacking the "DLC Dems" than he is at attacking Republicans or defining a truly winning platform.

I'm flattered. But I don't know as much as I'd like to know about the answers to *these* questions. If you look at the Video section on my site -- where I debunked the Flipper video -- that's where I dug up the most vintage Kerry quotes showing he thought Saddam was real threat for a long time. But what exact intelligence he saw before the vote -- I've been wondering that too. This thread is giving me ideas for more updates to do on the site, which is something I've been meaning to get to.

see if any of these help

"Last resort" means something to someone who's seen combat
Bush promised he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. Today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion - $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004

Iraq is diverting our attention from the real war on terror
I believe in being strong, resolute and determined. I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart. Smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. Bush has made a colossal error of judgment
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004

Wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time
I said this from the beginning. I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace. You've about 500 troops here, 500 troops there and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war. It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Source: Patricia Wilson, Reuters Sep 5, 2004
############################################################
there's more.. I don't want to take up more space posting them all!

except this:
KERRY: It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it. Bush said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the UN and go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort. Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq-$200 billion. It's not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm

He had the most credibility of the lot, and when he stood up and said there was a threat, we believed him, if not the rest of them.

Powell, more moderate than the rest, and a Vietnam combat veteran.
At the time they invaded Iraq, though I thought they should have let the inspectors finish. Bush was so intent on becoming a "war president" that he didn't care how he did it.

The vote preliminary, it started the ball rolling to get inspectors in Iraq and figure out what was going on. That's all. It wasn't a vote for war, that's what the DSM is all about. I don't know how they can say the DSM proves Bush was secretly planning a war while telling the world he wasn't going to go to war; then turn around and say the IWR was a vote for war. Kind of discounts the DSM.

Most of the dems on the intelligence committee...those who would've known the most....voted against the war so I doubt they had anything to do with the Dems who voted yes. Rockefeller and Feinstein were the only democratic ayes on the intel committee.

I thought Edwards was there?

Pat Roberts, Kansas
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Mike Dewine, Ohio
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Trent Lott, Mississippi
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia

John D. Rockefeller West Virginia
Carl Levin, Michigan
Dianne Feinstein, California
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey


Ex Officio Members
Bill Frist, Tennessee
Harry Reid, Nevada
John Warner, Virginia


http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm



But I'm not sure why the current senate minority and majority leader are ex officio members. Makes me think this isn't the right list.

in 2002, Shelby and Graham were heading the committee. I have not found who else was in there.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/clark.pdf

Graham
Shelby
Levin
Rockefeller
Feinstein
Levin
Wyden
Durbin
Bayh
Edwards
Mikulski
Kyl
Inhofe
Hatch
Roberts
Dewine
Thompson

4-4? Is that right?

I guess that doesn't really help me.

Votes on IWR

Graham - nay
Rockefeller - yea
Feinstein - yea
Levin - nay
Wyden - nay
Durbin - nay
Bayh - yea
Edwards - yea
Mikulski - nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

quoted by somebody bitching about her email:

Feinstein writes:
<snip>

Please know that the Senate vote on the resolution
to authorize the use of force in Iraq was difficult and
consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings
from Administration and intelligence officials, as well as
the classified and unclassified versions of an important
National Intelligence Estimate that comprehensively
assessed Iraq's WMD program. It was based on trust that
this intelligence was the best our Nation's intelligence
services could offer, untainted by bias, and fairly
presented. In this case it was not.

<snip>


I found here:

http://www.noevalley.com/forum/showthread.php?s=2c6c1797f01729813c1ba5ae96177f19&p=833#post833

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/senators.iraq/

Lott: Intelligence justifies Iraq strike

Senate Democrats skeptical

September 11, 2002 Posted: 4:13 PM EDT (2013 GMT)

From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau

---------------------------------------

So what happened after this article?

Just some more clues on what went on - sounds like there were lotsssssssss of breifings:

http://www.hillnews.com/news/072704/iraq.aspx

<snip>

Durbin said that six weeks before the vote he had yet to see a national intelligence estimate — a document that analyzes a country’s capacity to develop and use weapons. Durbin wrote to George Tenet, the CIA’s director, in September and asked for the report.

“They hurried up and produced one in three weeks,” Durbin said. The report, he added, typically takes at least six months to prepare.

“I said, I don’t believe half of this” and that much of the document was conjecture, he said.

“I read it, and I said this does not make a convincing case for me,” he added.

Durbin tried to convince other senators who supported the resolution to change their minds, telling the ones who ventured to the White House for briefings that they were only getting half the story. Since the vote, he said, several of his colleagues have told him privately that they wished they had listened to him then and voted no.

But during that 2002 vote, he said, most people were only doing what they thought was right. Some of them, he said, were anguished over how to vote.

<snip>

I'll support you out there!

This needs to be seen.

On edit - What else do you have tucked away?:yourock:

that pushed them over. . .just havent found what it is yet. . .

I bookmarked it.

It has everything in there that shows that the Dems, the same dems that are fighting now, were fighting then! I didn't know that, because up until last year, C-span was something I would stop and watch for a few minutes at a time. I actually used to think it was boring. Now, it's the first thing I put on when I put on the tv, and it's usually on all day!

Kerry fought going to Iraq!
quoting:
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who also has his eye on the White House, agrees the case has not yet been made for Congress to give Bush approval for military action.

"I don't think we're at that point yet," Kerry said, adding that although there was an "increased compilation" of information, there was a "sameness" in much of what he heard Tuesday.

Even Lieberman tried to fight it!

This is all the proof us KERRYCRATS need to fight against the bs.

Thank you - excellent post!

Dam - I wish I had these articles before Nov!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/9/204744.shtml
Key Democrats Join Bush on Iraq Measure

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Oct. 10, 2002

WASHINGTON – Congress moved closer Wednesday to granting President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, as a number of key Democrat senators said they would stand behind him despite reservations that the resolution will give him too much power.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam War hero and frequent critic of Bush's foreign policy, said that he was voting for the resolution based on the president's word that approving it would not mean war was imminent.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Kerry, a likely contender for the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2004, said he trusted that the president would continue to work in good faith with the United Nations and would not go to war for any other reason than to eliminate Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

He said he believed the president, based on his speech Monday, would refrain from using the broader authority to wage war unilaterally that the resolution grants.

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days: to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out 'tough, immediate' inspections requirements and to 'act with our allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

"If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out," Kerry said.

The discomfort expressed by Kerry with the breadth of the Iraq resolution was echoed by other lawmakers during the full day of Senate debate Wednesday. But stating they believed the resolution was bound to pass, the reticent lawmakers said that they felt that expressing national unity was more important than reopening a lengthy debate that might prevent a final agreement.

But this article is how Kerry was hesitant to go along with *
and that he expected * to do everything possible before going to war.
Which is what he said over and over again during the campaign.

I keep meaning to update the site www.kerryoniraqwar.com This is the kind of thing I need to put up there.

:hi:

to include going to the UN and asking a resolution.

I always wondered if Kerry had not seen IWR as a way to force Bush to go to the UN and send inspectors in Iraq. Remember that Bush wanted to go to war immediately that summer.

If you havent read it, and If you can get it from the library, worth the read. . .Like No Other Time : The 107th Congress and the Two Years That Changed America Forever

I don't have it so I can't summarize it well -- but a big rush rush push push push by Rove and Cheney to get this thing thru before the 2002 elections. . .as evidence by this little bushbot's quote from this 9/10 WAPO article:

<snip>

"People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?"

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A64509-2002Sep10¬Found=true

I find it really interesting what was going on leading up to
"Shock and Awe"
Which is all bs anyway, as we all know now that we were already there.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0911-05.htm

I really think that the Dems were pressured!

In response to complaints from Democrats that there wasn't enough information.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

That's why his floor speech before the vote clearly says he is voting on WMD only, and that all peaceful means must be used to resolve the situation. His vote was exactly what he always said it was, a vote to threaten force to get the inspectors back into Iraq, and use force as a very last resort.

There were senators who fully supported regime change through war, like Lieberman, Biden & Hillary. There were others who supported it, just now at that time, like Graham. Then there was Byrd, who thought the only kind of war resolution that can be voted on is an actual declaration of war. Then there were the kneejerkers who would never vote for war under a Republican unless we'd been attacked, like Wyden. Lots of reasons people voted on that resolution in different ways.

when they start saying how he was for this war.

As far as Biden, he was pretty outspoken against it. I was pleasantly surprised when I read that.

:hi:

I've pretty much understood Kerry's position on Iraq all along, but you guys have really added to my understanding with the great information and links posted on this thread. I've learned a lot from all of this. You guys are the best!

"I hold the Bush administration responsible, from the president through the secretaries of state and defense and all those who have had a hand in starting this war.

"I also hold every Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize this misadventure as accomplices."

Why can't he realize that there is the Downing Street Memo? Sometimes I wish that Kerry and other good dems that voted for the IWR would have listened to the Congressional Black Caucus when they said that Bush was lying all along. I guess I am just hyped by Maxine Waters' rally in CA about getting out of Iraq.

I am tired of this IWR drama and people trashing good dems like Kerry.

And long! I had to leave for about an hour. When I came back it was still on :)