Sorry this is long for a first comment on this blog, but I've been trying to get broad support for my point for too long. Please bear with me.

Just watched a brief portion of the Russert Show when once again I am frustrated to the point of yelling at my TV. Russert again makes the assertion that Kerry, Clinton and other Dem leaders "were for the war in Iraq." I was also carrying on a conversation on AOL member boards on this topic. I have been clobbering Pro-Iraq-Invasion types for nearly three years with a simple point. This simple point is made by quoting Kerry at what he said to explain his vote.

MY point is the anti-Iraq invasion coalition would best be served if we first dispelled the Republican/Rove induced myth that Most Dems also voted for the war. What Bush did was automatic regime change regardless of the outcome of UN inpspection and no Democrat voter for automatic regime change.

Perhaps this exchange on AOL will explain it:

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so. Senator Kerry Oct 7, 2002

NotfooooldbyW (earlier post): Holding them (White House Iraq Group) accountable is the first step to returning America's awesome power to the management of a more humane, moral and deserving world leadership.

Hoo:  ..guess I wasn't clear Foo--I am asking for the names of people who you think can "return America's awesome power to the management of a more humane, moral and deserving world leadership"???

NotfooooldbyW: Anyone you hate Gezz would pretty much take care of that. But I'll put out two Dems and one Repub; Kerry, Biden and Lugar. I'll even show why these three would fill the void if all the Iraq invasion Bushies were sent to do some hard time which they surely deserve.

Kerry's speech on the floor of the Senate on October 7, 2002 explains it:

Senator Kerry: When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

NotfooooldbyW: Kerry earns the right to come down hard on Bush here if he breaks the promise he made to Congress and the American people to work through the UN to disarm Iraq FIRST.

Kerry: I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm."

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

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 and immediate inspection 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 among the first to speak out.

they managed to be interesting and articulate and they didn't stumble or fall off point.

mr. potatohead was surprisingly respectful of their points and positions.

They may be articulate and on point but why do Jerome and Kos go along with the notion that Kerry and other Dems voted for war, were in favor of it, and agreed with Bush. Have they read Kerry's speech that very strongly made it clear that a vote for the resolution was a vote to force Saddam's compliance with UN inspections. Kerry did not vote for "automatic" regime change by US military force. He voted for the use of force if it was determined to be absolutely necessary. And that was a huge "if".

IF - he delegated his duty and his responsibility.  They all did.  I understand the distinction you are making; but it sounds like an "excuse" for what they did.  Bottom line, they gave Bush what he asked for, and it was "stupid" to trust him.  They should have known better.   I think they did it bcause they were afraid of the politics of voting "no".    

Did you believe Bush?  I didn't.  I watched him address the country and the congress.  It was so obvious he was lying.  The only thing that could have made in plainer would have been his nose growing as he spoke.  It was obvious...