Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(61,022 posts)
66. Thanks tio you, BLM - here is a link to David Frum in the National Review blasting Kerry for speakin
Mon Sep 9, 2013, 10:56 AM
Sep 2013

out against going to war. Apparently, the Republicans heard him - even is this man didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3358606&mesg_id=3358606

[div class = "excerpt"]
Publication: National Review
Publication Date: 24-FEB-03
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Frum, David
Full Article:
The 'Rush' to War, and The Day After Never

How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

Well, everything is relative. Compared to the movement of the tectonic plates or the cooling of the earth's core, the United States is indeed hurtling headlong to war. But by the normal standards of political life, the "rush to war" is a rush only in the sense that 5 o'clock on the Santa Monica Freeway is the "rush hour." The truth is that we have been inching toward war for the past ten years-and there are still quite a number of inches left to traverse.
<snip>

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."



This was also done at a very tough time in Kerry's life. He had learned just before the holidays that he had cancer. He was getting tests and treatments in January and had surgery in February. Still, he - unlike every other Democrat who voted to give Bush authority - spoke out in this speech and a few others.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"...Kerry stated at that time that he expected President Bush.. Segami Sep 2013 #1
He did not break that promise karynnj Sep 2013 #64
good job hfojvt Sep 2013 #71
Of course it's a lie. He's a fucking LIAR cali Sep 2013 #2
When Kerry challenged Bush to answer four questions... Segami Sep 2013 #3
You're wrong. Kerry opposed the DECISION to go to war when weapon inspectors proved blm Sep 2013 #4
23 Senators actually voted No on the invasion, Kerry voted Yes, Hagel voted Yes. Biden voted Yes. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #7
And when inspectors proved WMDs were not there, Kerry stood with them and against blm Sep 2013 #12
A Yes vote was support for the decision to go to war and no amount of spin can change that Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #9
He voted Yes, and said at the time that should weapon inspectors not find what blm Sep 2013 #11
The yes vote was legally binding support for the war, the promise to stand against was mere rhetoric Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #15
Like Obama and his signing statement on the NDAA. OnyxCollie Sep 2013 #44
voting yes meant that his protests afterward would mean nothing. roguevalley Sep 2013 #54
You vote to get inspectors in and see what they find. blm Sep 2013 #55
anyone who voted for this at any stage is a weasel. I live in the boonies of roguevalley Sep 2013 #60
They were informed it would include UN weapon inspection process. blm Sep 2013 #61
Baghdad Johnny voted to give bush a blank check and cali Sep 2013 #65
there was a time in late February hfojvt Sep 2013 #70
+1,000 n/t malaise Sep 2013 #19
Thanks tio you, BLM - here is a link to David Frum in the National Review blasting Kerry for speakin karynnj Sep 2013 #66
Kerry did oppose the decision. ProSense Sep 2013 #5
23 Senators actually voted No on the invasion, Kerry voted Yes, Hagel voted Yes. Biden voted Yes. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #8
I posted the other resolutions, and the quote doesn't contradict my point: ProSense Sep 2013 #14
I notice that you don't include Hillary Clinton karynnj Sep 2013 #67
A Yes vote to authorize Bush to go to war is not opposing the war Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #10
I guess she thinks it will Aerows Sep 2013 #16
He DID stand against the decision to invade after inspections. blm Sep 2013 #22
A Yes vote Aerows Sep 2013 #24
To use another example, the "near win" on the Amash amendment. OnyxCollie Sep 2013 #45
I'd be dizzy, but the bullshit smells Aerows Sep 2013 #47
And he said if weapon inspector reports proved there were no WMDs he'd blm Sep 2013 #18
Once again voting Yes is supporting the war even if he promised to oppose it later Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #25
At the time weapon inspections were part of IWR...other Yes Dems said the same blm Sep 2013 #28
He supported the war before the report was released Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #30
Nope - he promised IN THAT SAME SPEECH to stand against a decision blm Sep 2013 #33
He stood for the decision before he stood against it Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #35
The TRUTH matters. And it doesn't change. He did what he SAID he'd do blm Sep 2013 #41
He voted for the DECISION to invade Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #43
Then why the UN resolution to put inspectors in? blm Sep 2013 #56
These are some of the same people ProSense Sep 2013 #52
He voted yes Aerows Sep 2013 #27
He did stand against the DECISION to invade, just as he promised when he blm Sep 2013 #31
OMG Aerows Sep 2013 #48
He voted "Yes" Aerows Sep 2013 #13
Still baloney - he was against the DECISION TO INVADE after the weapon inspectors blm Sep 2013 #20
He voted YES to invade Iraq Aerows Sep 2013 #21
No one said he didn't vote Yes on IWR. And at the time IWR included weapon inspections blm Sep 2013 #26
You were just arguing and so was ProSense Aerows Sep 2013 #29
I made no such silly assertion. ProSense Sep 2013 #34
Since when did "use of military force" not mean war? NuclearDem Sep 2013 #36
The attempts to spin Aerows Sep 2013 #38
"No, it wasn't an official declaration of war, but" ProSense Sep 2013 #50
Kerry didn't agree with Bush's decision to go to invade Iraq. Aerows Sep 2013 #37
The vote was in October 2002 - the inspectors came in AFTER that the decision to go to war was March karynnj Sep 2013 #68
Do you even believe the shit you are saying? Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #39
I know exactly what I'm saying, and really don't give a shit what you think. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #51
Oh, it's obvious that you don't give a shit what anyone thinks Aerows Sep 2013 #73
No, I said clearly that his was a tough vote, but, he stuck to his word blm Sep 2013 #57
The AUMF was an authorization to use military force against Iraq. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #17
He voted yes Aerows Sep 2013 #23
geez, he not only voted for it then, in 2004 he said he'd do it again. KG Sep 2013 #40
He's a member of the administration now NuclearDem Sep 2013 #42
It's like they expect to hold Aerows Sep 2013 #46
The politics of convenience. Dove when convenient. Hawk when convenient..or when the boss says so. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2013 #6
those of us who were paying attention since 2002 are not fooled by Kerry's attempt... mike_c Sep 2013 #32
The first person of note The Wizard Sep 2013 #49
Except now Dean supports attacking Syria. dixiegrrrrl Sep 2013 #58
Because Biden-Lugar would have prevented war in Iraq? blm Sep 2013 #59
In fall of 2002, when the resolutions were voted on, Dean supported a resolution against Iraq karynnj Sep 2013 #69
lying for the boss is his job. Kerry, like his boss, is a liar bowens43 Sep 2013 #53
Bunch of despicable liars jsr Sep 2013 #62
If you are referring to the OP - I agree karynnj Sep 2013 #72
k&r Little Star Sep 2013 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kerry COVERS UP Iraq War ...»Reply #66