Anti-Iraq War people and Kerry

[erpowers]

Are there any Democrats who post on this site who will not vote for Kerry because he supported the Iraq war?

[NMDemDist2]

1. heavens, I hope not

4 more years of Bush will be a disaster

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. There are some...why do you ask?

[erpowers]

9. I Read a Post

In this post some of the posters were angry at writers and jounalists who supported the war. Some of them seemed as if they would not forgive the people who supported the war. Some just wanted those who supported the war to apologize for their support of the war. The post caused me to wonder if some would not vote for Kerry due to his support of the war.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Kerry didn't "support the war"

He voted for a resolution based on good faith and based on info he heard during closed door security meetings...

Some won't vote for him but the consensus seems to be that most of those people are in states that are firmly Repub (at least from what I have seen)

[mike_c]

17. Kerry did "support the war" and he continues to do so....

I'm sorry, NSMA, but I must disagree with you. Kerry's speech on the senate floor before his vote was filled with repetition of Bushco's rationale for invasion. He voted "yes" to the IWR-- not "maybe", not "well, only if the U.N. agrees," and not "only if you have to." He has since stated unequivicably that he wants to send more U.S. forces to Iraq, that he does not intend to withdraw, and that the only real problem with the Iraq war has been Bushco's conduct of it. He has NEVER said "I was wrong," even if only because he was duped (and I don't believe for a minute that he was that naive). Most importantly, he has refrained from denouncing the PNAC subtext for the Iraq invasion rationale-- the control of ME resources, the permanent U.S. military presence and diplomatic hegemony, the rape and pillage of the Iraqi banking and business system, and the explicit approval of Israeli dominance in the region at any cost. Absent that denouncement, I can only conclude that he either approves of that agenda or at least will not oppose it's realization. That all adds up to pretty unqualified support for the Iraq war IMO.

on edit: And then there's the greater context of the fictional "war on terror." Kerry has also expressed complete acceptance of that Bushco meme and seeks to coopt it for himself, as in "I can do a better job of fighting the WOD than Bush can."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. You act as if he has said the opposite of what you are claiming

which he hasn't. He has a rocky relationship with Sharon, an item that was acknowledged before the primaries were over...he has made statements to the effect that American companies are profiteering in Iraq, and I've NOT ever heard him stand for Israeli dominance in the area.

Taking what one HAS NOT said to prove that they mean the opposite is faulty logic...it assumes way too much.

[mike_c]

22. nonetheless there ARE candidates who have spoken out...

...on these issues. I can only read Kerry's lack of opposition as tacit acceptance of the status quo. As for Israel, see: http://www.counterpunch.org/kerry02172004.html. John Kerry: "The cause of Israel is the cause of America." I'm sorry, Kerry just does not speak for me.

However, as I've stated before, I will change my mind about the election in a skinny minute if Kerry speaks out against the war and pledges to disengage and withdraw as quickly as possible. I have other problems with him, but that's the deal breaker-- I can overlook everything else and hope for the best.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. And they stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected

and can only serve as spoilers to the "less reviled" while aiding and abetting the worst candidate...fortunately you live in CA where your vote won't amount to squat (not that I wish to see your vote cancelled...I just simply abhor your lack of pragmatism in the matter given that I am aware of your educational level...it speaks to an unwillingness to confront the reality of the REAL dangers of this election)

[mike_c]

29. that's why I intend to help them....

They'll stand a better chance if people have the courage to vote for them.

You're right-- my vote will disappear into the overwhelming CA Kerry landslide. I disagree with you completely about your last statement, however-- I see the worst danger of this election cycle as the dominance of centrist/right/corporatist politics in both major parties. This election in particular cries out for a real opposition choice, a candidate who stands squarely against the neo-con agenda. I think one of the greatest dangers facing the American electorate is the lack of a clear opposition mandate for either of the major parties, but especially for the Democrats. America has never faced a political threat as serious as the Bush regime, yet MY PARTY lacks the huevos to stand for unashamed opposition. The Democratic challanger will not take office with a mandate to change the direction America is heading, largely because of our party's failure to sieze the opportunity to articulate any fundamental opposition-- that's a terrible missed opportunity IMO.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. One by one

They'll stand a better chance if people have the courage to vote for them.

Fine

You're right-- my vote will disappear into the overwhelming CA Kerry landslide.

Little things mean a lot

I disagree with you completely about your last statement, however-- I see the worst danger of this election cycle as the dominance of centrist/right/corporatist politics in both major parties.

And you are sorely mistaken. The most dangerous aspect of this election cycle is the threat of one party rule aided by appointments to the USSC which will permanently undermine ANY power on the left.

You aren't even taking a calculated risk...anything that helps Bush (or hurts Kerry thereby helping Bush) is mutiny..plain and simple.

This election in particular cries out for a real opposition choice, a candidate who stands squarely against the neo-con agenda.

I think you ADD to Kerry's support of that agenda much more than anything he has stated...I think the issue is much more a function of your interpretation than anything...everything that falls into your frame of reference appears to be a patent endorsement of the agenda if it doesn't squarely negate it...I can't buy that.


I think one of the greatest dangers facing the American electorate is the lack of a clear opposition mandate for either of the major parties, but especially for the Democrats.

Yes..well I might remind you leftists ran against Wellstone...so even the most liberal Democrat seems to be a cause celebre for those who wish to irrationally undermine and thereby delute that opposition you are dying to see manifest.


America has never faced a political threat as serious as the Bush regime, yet MY PARTY lacks the huevos to stand for unashamed opposition.

You're part of your party and you seem to lack those huevos as well by taking it outside the paradigm of the party...I can at least respect Kucinich for acknowledging the reality of the situation and working to fortify progressivism from within...I would also note that a pull back to the center IS INDEED a move toward the left for anyone with a strong enough relationship with pragmatism to realize the RIGHT did not achieve this hard right turn overnight.

I could write a book about the left (far left anyway) being so terminally unsatisfied as to throw the baby out with the bathwater on policy issues. I've been through it on the state level for 22 years...better to aim for the moon and miss it than aim for your foot and hit it which is exactly how I interpret your move...it guarantees failure for you and others simply to satisfy the egotistic desire to make a statement which won't even be recognized it will be so small comparatively.


The Democratic challanger will not take office with a mandate to change the direction America is heading, largely because of our party's failure to sieze the opportunity to articulate any fundamental opposition-- that's a terrible missed opportunity IMO.

Again...this statement relies on speculation...you simply CAN'T know the direction Kerry will take foreign policy except that it will be far less unilateral than currently.

[Carolina]

27. ditto, mike_c

I will vote for Kerry because getting rid of Bush is an absolute must; and I also was unwaveringly pro-Kerry until IWR vote. After that I went looking for another candidate and became part of the draft Clark movement. Now however, I'm stuck with JK and no convoluted explanations by him or his most ardent supporters will ever undo the damage of that vote.

People can speak of his thirty year record 'til they're blue in the face but I wish for one thing: that candidate Kerry today had the same balls as Lt. Kerry in 1971. I wish he would say he was wrong and we're going to get the hell out. But alas it appears his prostate surgery went a little too far ...

[Carolina]

28. ditto, mike_c

I will vote for Kerry because getting rid of Bush is an absolute must; and I also was unwaveringly pro-Kerry until IWR vote. After that I went looking for another candidate and became part of the draft Clark movement. Now however, I'm stuck with JK and no convoluted explanations by him or his most ardent supporters will ever undo the damage of that vote.

People can speak of his thirty year record 'til they're blue in the face but I wish for one thing: that candidate Kerry today had the same balls as Lt. Kerry in 1971. I wish he would say he was wrong and we're going to get the hell out. But alas it appears his prostate surgery went a little too far ...

[Malva Zebrina]

36. and those who voted against it

such as Kennedy, did not have good faith, even though they also sat on committees that were savvy as to what was going on.

I simply cannot buy the "good faith" mantra. It is naive and it is mythologizing Kerry.

He wanted Iraq as much as Bush.

I am not dancing in joy over the fact that in order to get Bush out, I have to sacrifice my convictions about humanity. I do believe KErry and all those who voted to give Bush the blank check did so for political reasons and they also believed the neocons assertion that control over the middle east is essential to America's survival/meaning it's expansion of empire and control to the entire world.

Not only have I been held hostage, as a citizen of this counmtry, by an insane, stupid man who was not elected, but it seems I am also held hostage by the oppostion.

This is not comfortable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. It's not comfortable for me either

it's just the reality of the situation and it sucks...just far less than the notion of a second Bush administration.

Peace

[Redleg]

43. That's right but you won't convince some of these people.

They just don't get it.

[Jacobin]

3. We have no choice but to vote for him

I think there are a couple of poster here like that. My gut reaction was to do the same.

However, this election is too important. The country can't survive another four years of BushCo.

I'm virulently against the invasion of Iraq and was from the start. Hopefully, we can get Kerry to wind the fucker down and declare victory and leave as we will NEVER EVER successfully occupy Iraq.

[mstrsplinter326]

4. I won't vote for Kerry, but the war not even the tip of the Iceburg

[prolesunited]

19. So, you're voting for Bush then?

:shrug:

[mstrsplinter326]

42. Ha! Good one....

There are more than two parties in America... And Please don't preach the "you're either with us or against us." Please!! I've heard it so much, it gets tired quick, and it sounds republican.

I live in Indiana, for whom I vote matters not. I am voting for Dave Matthews.

[mike_c]

5. me....

I won't vote for him unless he repudiates his IWR vote and articulates a clear disengagement and exit strategy that removes American military forces and civil influence from Iraq as quickly as possible. Complete withdrawal.

[Frances]

7. And how will you feel when

Bush declares war on Syria? And then Iran? and then North Korea?

Get real.

[mike_c]

10. I'll feel like the Democrats missed yet another...

...historic opportunity to oppose the neo-con war machine, because you can bet your bottom dollar that if ANY repig president invades another ME country, it'll be with congressional democratic collusion-- just as Kerry helped deliver the IWR to Bush in 2002.

People forget too easily how democracy works. If you want change, you have to have the courage to vote for change. Kerry has said that he'll continue the course initiated by Bush toward a ME foreign policy dictated by the neo-con PNAC rat bastards. He's already squandered the opportunity he had to vote "no," choosing instead to support Bush's war.

I want regime change in America. Real regime change, not just a friendlier version of the old boss. I can bitch and moan about it all day long on DU, but the only place I can really make a difference is at the ballot box. I'll be voting for a candidate who has the courage to speak out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not a candidate who expresses satisfaction with the objectives of that invasion, and who only criticizes it's execution.

[gpandas]

23. i hope kerry's borrowing repugs chief tactic-

lying to get elected. hope things will be different after his victory.

[mike_c]

25. and I thought I was cynical about politician's motives....

Ouch.

[gpandas]

49. not so much cynical, as realistic...

we (dems) have to realize that a lot of americans like being lied to, rather than facing the truth. the repugs bank on the idiocy of these people and mold them however they want. we need the idiot vote, too. we need some bullshit names for our policies, like "clean air act" so we can get them to vote dem, and then they will be forced to defend their choice, as none of these idiots will ever admit they voted poorly. doesn't matter what we actually do, because they lack the intellect to even care. for example we could call our gun control policy "give guns back to the people" and they would love it.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. How will you feel if Kerry does?

Get real.

I am not saying I think Kerry will invade those countries but who knows, given his rightward tilt this year. You have to accept that all people have their limits.
Kerry is on the borderline with me. Simply getting bush out of office is not enough to force me to vote for someone who I see as betraying many issues I care about and IMO for political reasons.
Right now he has my vote, but he could lose it. He needs to pay attention to the left. Chosing a DLC stooge for VP will probably make me write in Gore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Until a few days ago, I wasn't going to vote for him.

But, I'll be holding my nose again. Only because bush is so entirely evil and, in this case, "not as bad as.." is really an understatement.

[Union Thug]

8. holding nose, voting for Kerry /eom

[Bridget Burke]

12. I'll vote for him.

Just considering the alternative is enough to convince me.

By the way, don't assume that everybody who answers your question is a "Democrat".

[pocket]

13. holding my nose here

I feel like I have a gun to my head.

[GumboYaYa]

15. It depends.

I'll vote for him if my state (MO) is close, which it looks like it will be. I'm certainly not excited about Kerry, but he's not Bush.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. Moi aussi, YaYa

Though it's not looking quite so close down here.

[silverpatronus]

16. i'm not a citizen...

but if i were, i'd be writing in kucinich. that department of peace looks better every day...

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I'm getting drunk and taking the bus to the polls and voting

against Bush. Are you happy?

[MadHound]

21. I quite possibly will not vote for Kerry,

And the his support of the Iraq war is only part of the problem. His corporate friendly policies(corporate tax cuts in hopes of some sort of trickle down job creation, support of "free"trade), and continuation of the "same ol' same ol'" domestic policies have me very, very leery of Kerry. Quite frankly, he comes across as another clinton, talking a good liberal game, but when crunch time comes he goes all corporatist/conservative.

We need a real change in this country, not just a slowdown in the speed with which we are approaching the cliff edge. I don't see Kerry as providing this sort of change, so right now I'm torn. We'll see come Nov.

[prolesunited]

30. Please think carefully about this

I agree that Kerry is not my "ideal" candidate and many of my views are further left, HOWEVER, the *most* we can hope for at this point is to slow down the speed as which we are approaching the cliff's edge.

If Bush and his cronies were to get another four years, he truly will send us and the entire country — perhaps the world — off the edge of the cliff at breakneck speed. We will barely be able to recover from his first four years. Another four will be disastrous.

I know it's a matter of conscious for many on the left, BUT how in good conscious can you let these evil people walk off with another four years.

I will continue to support progressive causes with my voice and my money, but you can be sure that I'll be voting for Kerry.

Dean showed us what was possible through the grassroots and the power people have when they come together. Let's elect Kerry and continue building momentum for a more progressive vision for the country. At least a holding pattern will give us four more years before the next primary.

[MadHound]

34. Trust me, I'm thinking very carefully about my vote.

I'm old enough to remember LBJ, and other Dems who continued and escalated wars. Kerry's comments on "holding the course", and throwing another 20-40,000 troops into the meat grinder have me very leery.

His position on tax breaks for corporations, continuance of "free" trade also have me very nervous. I remember Clinton and how he instigated that corrosive cancer known as outsourcing.

I've been a life long Dem, and have held my nose a lot over the years. And have yet to see any progress made. At best a Dem's tenour has been a holding pattern, and at worst it has left me wondering how the officeholder can call himself Democratic. I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" to the point that my soul is unclean, for I have made a deal with the devil.

It is time for a real change in this country, and voting for more of the same ol' same ol' lesser of two evils is not going to bring about that change. It is doubtful that it will even buy us a holding pattern. Therefore I am left with the only truly good option, voting for, and building up a third party. The Dems are hopelessly corrupted by corporate cash, in spite of individual Dems that I admire and would(and have)vote for. It is time to take the corporations out of our government, and the only party that I see who has a chance of doing this is the Greens.

I know that this stance isn't popular in this time and place, but after all, aren't many revolutionary idea unpopular? But I feel that the need for a true change in government is so very imparitive that NOW is the time to abandon the two party/same corporate master paradigmn of our current electoral system. Castigate me, call me traitor if you want, but as the horror of our current governmental system becomes more and more apparent, you will thank me for working towards a real change, and join me in my endeavours.

Frankly, I think that the whole Democratic/Republican dichotomy is nothing more that the real(corporatists) powers that be playing good cop/bad cop with the electorate. A perfect example of this is our current election slate. Bush has scared the Democrats into voting ABB, thus allowing another corporate pawn into the Presidency, albeit a kinder gentler pawn. Doesn't mean he will change much, in fact vis-a-vis the Iraq war, I doubt that he will change anything. But it keeps the masses happy with an illusion that they brought about real change when in reality they simply exchange a cruel bumbling President for a kinder gentler one. Yet the big plans will continue all the same, the corporate powers behind the throne will insure that.

So we will see, much could change between now and Novemember. But if the election were held tommorrow, it is doubtful that Kerry would get my vote.

[prolesunited]

38. If Bush wins, the "war" will surely escalate

and way more than 40,000 will be thrown into the meat grinder.

I really, really do understand what you are saying and share many of your same sentiments.

I really think we need more parties and more choices. My ideal would be multiple parties with run-off elections. But, we are still confined to working within the current system.

I think a third party needs to start at the grassroots and locally, though. You're never going to move in and overthrow the status quo at the top. You have TWO parties working against you on that one. How many Greens are in office on the state and local level, much less Congressional?

If you trace the history of successful movements, it starts with agonizingly slow work at the bottom rungs before it percolates upward. I think it is possible to reconcile your core beliefs with voting for Kerry by being practical (and realistic) on the national level while continuing to make you voice heard.

A vote for a third party or a write-in or simply not voting at all is simply a vote for Bush. Can your conscious handle that one when they continue gutting the country and enlarge their quest for empire? I know mine can't.

[MadHound]

39. Sorry friend, but the fearmonger card no longer works with me

It has been played too many times in the past. Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, all of these men were portrayed as the devil incarnate, and I, like a dutiful Dem, an unthinking sheep fell for it. And meanwhile, the Dems moved ever rightward, and the differences between the two major parties shrank until it was no longer a matter of substance, merely style.

And yes, it takes a long while to build up a third party, meaning that the imperative for starting now is even greater. I agree with you to a certain extent that it cannot be a top down process, however a viable third party needs the national exposure(and matching funds) that a Presidential campaign brings. How many people knew of the Green party before Nader ran with them in '00? You need candidates and campaigns at both ends of the spectrum to become a successful party.

And how clean do you feel your conscience will be if Kerry wins, and yet continues the ongoing quagmire in Irag, or better yet, escalates it ala LBJ? This is a very real consequence in the upcoming election, the 800 pound gorilla that the ABBers refuse to acknowledge. I would rather vote for somebody who has stated they will get us out of Iraq ASAP, than for a person who has promised more men, money and blood so that he can "stay the course" and get re-elected in '08.

[prolesunited]

41. Well, history

will show who is right on this one.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

45. Good post

TWL

[Carolina]

32. "he comes across as another Clinton ..."

in his dreams. He wishes he had the charisma of the Big Dog. Clinton was somewhat forced to move rightward in order to deal single-handedly with the vigorous, destructive repuke Congressional opposition, but he is (or was in 1992) liberal at heart back.

Sadly, I think they ALL get Potomac fever/river blindness after being in Washington. But if Kerry had Clinton's charm, silver tongue and way of connecting with people, I wouldn't worry about this election so much. I don't hold out much hope for what he'll be able to do especially since the repukes control Congress. But to borrow the old GOP line, I think I'll trust the people he surrounds himself with more and at least a Dem in the White House (veto power) can beat back the repuke hordes at the legislative gate.

BUT I AM WITH YOU about the need for REAL CHANGE (not a phony real deal).

[truthspeaker]

24. not me. And he didn't (necessarily) "support" the Iraq War

He voted for IWR, which gave the president the power to go to war on Iraq if certain conditions were met, probably on the (correct, IMHO)reasoning that Saddam would only respond to a credible threat of force. And it worked: Saddam backed down and let inspectors in; diplomacy had not failed, so the conditions in IWR were not met. But then Bush declared war anyway, because he's a lying fuckwit. Should Kerry have known Bush was a lying fuckwit? Absolutely. Would I feel better about him if he'd voted against IWR? Very much. But I'll vote for him anyway. Anyone but Bush.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

31. I'm a Dem, a liberal

and I was against this war from the beginning, for many reasons. I will be voting for Kerry, though.

My choice is Kerry, bush or Nader. Makes it pretty easy.

Get bush out, Kerry in, then let's start making some serious changes. I'm also looking at Congress and my state legislature, even local offices.

[KoKo]

35. I have to vote for Kerry, but am working with Progessive Democrats which

are popping up all over America to change the direction of the Democratic party. We hope to one day be to the Democratic Party what the RW is to the Repugs. We aim to take over influence from the DNC and the DLC who we see as corrupting our party by turning it over to special interests.

Kerry will be a DLC'er. I don't know if he will attempt to undo any of Bush's policies and dismantling of our civil rights and human rights. We can only hope that Progressive Democrats will nip at his heels to keep the rest of the country from being sold off. He's going to have his hands full with an economic crisis and a war mess that will take up all his time.

Someone has to work on rebuilding the party by snatching it out of the hands of those who long ago lost credibility as being different from the Repugs.

This is what most of the Democratic Anti-Iraq Invasion protestors are doing, that I know. Focusing our energies on the Party and not the candidate that we have to vote for because we don't have an alternative.

[sleipnir]

40. I'm voting for Kerry, but not I'm not giving him a dime of my money.

He gets my vote and that's it, I've donated some of my "presidential" money to Congressional races and that's where the rest of it will go.

Though, it's not only the IWR, there are nearly a dozen reasons why I'm not in favor of Kerry, so strongly that I refuse to support him other than a check mark in November.

But I do encourage others to vote against Bush, which sadly means they have to vote for Kerry.

Perhaps a good VP selection will shift me more into his court.

[adriennel]

44. Not happy but will vote anyway

in general, I'd prefer a more progressive stance against the war in Iraq and gay marriage vs. civil unions...but I guess we're not there yet so I will vote K.

[info being]

47. Will hold my nose because there is no viable alternative right now

[seabeyond]

48. right let bush win so he can invade other countries

that would show kerry and make their point of anti war