Mike Webb all over Kerry for his approval of Iraq war.

[devilgrrl]

He's not happy about it! Neither am I for that matter. :mad:

What's up with that???

[K-W]

1. Kerry doesnt approve of the Iraq war.

He thought the IWR was a good idea because it provided the threat of force to aid inspections.

He isnt right, but phrasing it the way you do just feeds into Bush's lies. And considering the washington misinformation its hard to hold it against Kerry that he thought Iraq was more of a threat than it was.

[still_one]

4. The point is that Kerry is falling into their trap

trying to appease the so-called undecided...

[K-W]

11. No that isnt it at all.

Kerry stands by his IWR vote. Most on DU disagree with that position, but his explenation satisfies me in that it isnt unreasonable.

He isnt trying to appease the undecided voters, he is simply explaining his record and making it clear that he believes force and the threat of force can and should be used in certain situations. This is what a large majority of Americans want to hear. They want to feel that in these uncertain times Kerry will not endanger them out of a fear or inability to use the military.

Yes militarism is scary, and yes, it would be great if this nation were enlightened enough to not require that assurance, but they arent and they wont be any time in the near future, so we must accept the fact that Kerry needs to push the idea that he is capable and willing to use the military.

[Andy_Stephenson]

42. So based on this statement I can assume John Kerry has

adopted the "preemption doctrine" and that Democrats of all stripes should adopt it as well.

"he is simply explaining his record and making it clear that he believes force and the threat of force can and should be used in certain situations."

this is so much poppycock...
"Yes militarism is scary, and yes, it would be great if this nation were enlightened enough to not require that assurance, but they arent and they wont be any time in the near future, so we must accept the fact that Kerry needs to push the idea that he is capable and willing to use the military."

[K-W]

53. No, thats realism.

You can live in never never land all you want.

But the fact that you choose to spin like a republican dissapoints me greatly.

[Guaranteed]

65. "like a republican"? You're advocating

the pre-emption doctrine.

[wtmusic]

2. Ain't nothing going to change

But good to hold Kerry's feet to the fire once in a while.

:hi:

[still_one]

3. This is slightly a distortion

what Kerry said was that he would give the president authority to exercise all options before going into Iraq if he had to do it again.

This is stupid double talk, and Kerry better be clear on the matter

[underseasurveyor]

6. Kerry better get ta clearing the air soon

Because Bernie Ward is talking about the same thing and he's not happy either.

[still_one]

8. You are correct, this is not a small matter that can be swept under

the rug

[K-W]

12. Kerry did clear the air.

What are people having a hard time with?

[underseasurveyor]

15. Because they're still saying

that Kerry would have invaded Iraq just the same as Too Stupid to be pResident did.

I understand what Kerry meant but unfortunately Kerry's clearing of the air about what he said is not being heard.

[K-W]

20. Well yah, the media is conservative.

We cant rely on them to get Kerry's message out, we must do it ourselves.

[kiahzero]

21. They're lying

What do you want? Kerry to lie too?

[underseasurveyor]

27. *sigh*

:eyes:

[Placebo]

5. If anyone HONESTLY thinks that Kerry...

would have gone to war like Bush has, then you shouldn't vote for Kerry.

I like that reasoning. :)

[still_one]

7. The point is they will use it against him because he is not

making the point in a simple statement, this president LIED

[K-W]

13. Because statements like that would lose him the election.

And id rather Kerry win, than speak like hes posting on DU.

[Guaranteed]

49. 55% of Americans don't think the Iraq war was worth it, now.

How bout some leadership?

[Kanary]

9. Damned good thing we have *some* media to listen and watch

'Cuz we can't say the same thing here.

:hi:

Kanary

[Robbien]

10. Once Kerry is sitting in the Oval Office

that man is going to get a piece of my mind on this.

Sharing my mind with Bush would be worthless.

[Larkspur]

127. He may not get into the White House if he keeps falling into Shrubs

and Rove's traps.

Kerry is wrong on IWR, and I'm glad that I have never been a Kerry supporter.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

16. Again I understand it, but the whole fricking press is reporting otherwise

this is why I was so upset the way he brought it up.

It is too easy to distort. That is why I said it was too complicated

Unless he clarifies himself in simple terms, this will continue to be distorted

[K-W]

18. Why are you blaming Kerry for the horrible media?

When are we going to stop blaming our candidates for the fact that they get spun badly in the media?

Dont you realize they can spin anything he says?

[still_one]

22. Because he needs to address his words carefully because

we know they will spin it...

[K-W]

24. He does address his words carefully.

There is no way to avoid the spin, he just has to do his best, which I assume he and his team of campaign people are doing.

Just because they spin him doesnt mean he is screwing up. We made this mistake with Gore.

[K-W]

17. There is a legit criticism of Kerry here, but indeed we cant be repubs

and use misleading language to critisize him.

Yes voting to give a president like Bush those powers was a mistake. But Kerry was in the washington bubble and we must give him some leeway because of that. Also we must understand that he has to appear willing to use force, or he is going to get beaten in this election.

But yah, I am damn sick of seeing "Kerry supports the war" on this forum. If I wanted to hear misleading use of language id go find Karl Rove.

[still_one]

19. There, you said it perfectly

all he needed to say was "voting to give a president like bush the "authority" was a mistake"

[K-W]

23. He cant say that.

For a few reasons.

1. I dont think he really believes he made a mistake, which is wrong, but I think, excusable in the circumstances.

2. Saying "I screwed up on issues of war" is not a very good rhetorical choice.

3. It opens him up to attacks that he is not willing to use force when needed. that he would let America be put in danger rather than use force. America wants very much right now to feel that Kerry can make them safe, and they want to know that he isnt going to shy away from using force to do so. It isnt fair, but its what people need to hear.

[Guaranteed]

54. IT...WASN'T....NEEDED. NT

[kiahzero]

26. It wasn't his mistake

The authority was not a mistake. The way President Bush fulfilled the requirements of the IWR was were the mistake was made. By claiming that the mistake was Kerry's vote, you're putting blame on Kerry for what was, in fact, Bush's error.

[Guaranteed]

56. If it was Bush's error for doing it, it was Kerry's error for allowing him

to do it.

If your drunk teenage kid asks for the car keys, and you let them take it out, when they hit someone you bear a lot of the responsibility, too.

[kiahzero]

60. Not a good analogy

The problem, in my mind, is that I still think that having a resolution (preferably Biden-Lugar or something stronger) was superior to no resolution. Given that, I can't compare it to "giving a drunk teenager the car keys," because that implies that one shouldn't have done it in the first place.

The way I conceptualize it is something closer to this scenario:

You leave a car key for your teenage kid, in case an emergency happens and they need it. The kid then gets sloshed and takes the car, getting in an accident.

Under that scenario, it's clear you bear little to no blame - you told the kid only to use the key in an emergency, and instead they abused the privilege.

[Guaranteed]

63. I like my analogy better,

because Kerry knew exactly what Bush wanted.

In any case- Kerry now says that Bush shouldn't have taken the car out at all. So, you give the kid the keys, he takes out the car, and then you say that he shouldn't have taken out the car, even when you already approved of the reasoning?

[kiahzero]

64. He didn't approve of the reasoning

He said then, and is saying now, that Bush should have only gone to war as a last resort.

The only way you can make the case that Kerry approved of the reasoning for Bush "taking the car out" is if you can make the case that Bush went to war as a last resort. That's not an argument you can make, because it's a fact that he didn't.

[Guaranteed]

66. As far as Kerry is concerned, Bush went

to war as a "last resort."

Kerry agreed Iraq was a threat because of the non-existent WMD. The weapons inspectors were in there for months, and found nothing- but we "knew" that they had them, right? So Saddam wasn't cooperating. What's the problem?

Kerry agreed with Bush's reasoning, which is why Kerry gave him the authority in the first place. Now he's saying he shouldn't have done it (in the way that Bush did), but as far as Kerry's own reasoning goes, Bush didn't do anything wrong.

[kiahzero]

70. Really? Then why did he say the exact opposite?

Kerry has said over and over again that he doesn't think Bush went to war as a last resort. So how can it be true that, "As far as Kerry is concerned, Bush went to war as a 'last resort?'"

Kerry agreed that inspections were necessary - a reasonable position, and one I agree with. So we put inspectors in. Of course, Bush obviously didn't agree that they were necessary, since he pulled the inspectors out early.

Bush misused the authority that was rightly given to him. It's really that simple.

[Guaranteed]

72. You tell me. He seems to be contradicting himself, doesn't he?

First he votes to give Bush authority to go to war (oh, right, as a last resort) because Iraq has these WMD that we're just so freaked out about (we were all shaking in our boots). Obviously Bush needed the authority to invade a country that had done absolutely nothing to us.

So then we get the weapons inspectors in there for a few months, and they don't find any of these things that we know he has. Seems like Saddam isn't cooperating, doesn't it? After all, we KNOW he has this stuff, and he's a threat to us. What else was left for us to do but invade? He wouldn't give up the weapons that he didn't have.

Now Kerry is saying that Bush SHOULDN'T have invaded? Why not? We had to protect ourselves. Like I said before, by Kerry's own reasoning Bush did the right thing.

Keep in mind I'm not even using the "Kerry knew what Bush was doing" argument to its full effectiveness. I'm just playing Kerry's game, here.

Never compromise your integrity, because this is what happens. You get nailed from both sides.

[wuushew]

73. Also the setup is a carbon copy for Iran

If it was okay to use force to disarm Saddam who had non-existent WMDs, then how is this any different from the threat that Iran will pose for real in as little as 12-24 months? By not renouncing the IWR Kerry is setting the stage for Bush or himself to engage in more games of cowboys and indians in the Middle East.

[Kanary]

76. Yup, I keep bringing that up, but nobody wants to address it.

Iran, here we come.

Whooopeeee

Kanary

[kiahzero]

77. Why is Bush lying somehow the fault of the IWR?

Bush went to war when he shouldn't have, and exaggerated the threat of Iraq to do so.

If Bush had followed the spirit of IWR, we would not have gone to war. The IWR called for the 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;"

It put the onus on the President to make this case. Kerry is saying that Bush did not actually demonstrate either of these conditions.

[wuushew]

86. Kerry's logic is still flawed

(A)actual or planned WMD programs do not constitute a real threat to national security. A country can only respond to military force when it is attacked or such an attack is imminent (i.e U.S. 1941 or Israel 1967). A sovereign entity is not bound to treaties it entered into in perpetuity. Germany had every right to re militarize the Rhineland in 1936 the same as Iraq had the authority to do as it pleased within its' own borders.

(B)The proper procedure for enforcing U.N. policy is to first determine what the intentions of the Security Council are and then enact the corresponding domestic legislation. Just like Gulf War I The IWR did this completely back-wards and should have been voted down.

[kiahzero]

90. Yes and no

Actual WMDs would be violations of the ceasefire that the Iraqis signed that ended Gulf War I. And I'm sorry, but Iraq does not have the authority to do "as it pleased within its own borders." Binding international law supersedes national sovereignty. Otherwise, what would be the point?

I agree that this was a ass-backwards method of enforcing UN policy, and I never liked that angle. But the unfortunate fact is that the UN is not as powerful as it should be, and it doesn't always act when it needs to (Kosovo comes to mind, as does Rwanda). If I were writing the legislation, I probably would not have included that passage... with that being said, given the fact that it is juxtaposed with a position that the Democrats were taking at the time (that war should only happen as a last resort), I feel comfortable speculating that the two were added as a mutual compromise.

[wuushew]

101. Sovereignty is only is forfeited when one country effects another

Since Iraq had no presence physically, militarily, or otherwise in its neighbor's affairs for over twelve years what was the logical rationale for threatening to destroy the entire civil infrastructure of the country? Seems like that is destroying the village in order to save it.

In the past the punishment for Saddam's intransigence were passive measures like trade sanctions. Actions that did not actively interfere in the governing of the country. The no-fly zones were not legitimate policy instruments. If U.N. resolutions never expire then can't any Arab country on its own initiative enforce said resolutions that Israel ignores via military force?

[kiahzero]

102. So genocide is alright?

Sorry, but no. Sovereignty over internal matters is not absolute, and certainly not when a nation signs agreements dealing with those specific internal matters.

As for your argument via Israel, I agree - that's why I disagreed with the idea of 'enforcing UN resolutions' being in the IWR.

[wuushew]

106. I agree genocide should be acted on

The problem with international law is that besides relatively few things human cultural norms very tremendously from country to country.
Capital punishment, abortion, treatment of juveniles and the appropriate amount of power that governments can use to oppress their populations very greatly.

About the only things that countries agree upon is the right to defend themselves from outside aggression. The concepts that form "golden rules" are the only basis for international law since those are the only valid universal concepts. All else is relative.

If we act on the basis of need then the squeaky wheel should get the grease which means any of a number of places in Africa not the oil rich Middle East.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

75. So how does Kerry vote in the future?

If he holds that the concept of trusting the President is a good thing then the same damn thing will happen again. Why does he not recoginze the advantage of trusting Congress with war making powers instead of one man? Senators Byrd and Kennedy know this, why not Kerry?

[Guaranteed]

78. So then the last resort was what?

If we DIDN'T find the WMD (when the inspections were "completed"), then we were just supposed to say "whoops" and go home? Don't the words "last resort" imply that we KNEW Saddam had WMD? And, if we know that, doesn't it mean he wasn't cooperating and we had to invade? If we knew he had them, why didn't he just give them up? We all know that Bush's excuse in that case would have been that Saddam is screwing with us, and that we couldn't let him get away with it (which is what he was already saying before he invaded).

Or were we supposed to invade if we DID find WMD?

What was the last resort? Where was the end of the road? What would have constituted Saddam not cooperating, if what he did (or didn't do) wasn't it, when we knew that he had them?

[kiahzero]

80. Pretty much

If we DIDN'T find the WMD (when the inspections were "completed"), then we were just supposed to say "whoops" and go home?

Yeah, pretty much.

Don't the words "last resort" imply that we KNEW Saddam had WMD?

Not really. If we knew he had them, the whole thing would have been an exercise in futility.

Or were we supposed to invade if we DID find WMD?

Nope. Only if we found WMDs, and Saddam refused to give them up.

What was the last resort? Where was the end of the road? What would have constituted Saddam not cooperating, if what he did (or didn't do) wasn't it, when we knew that he had them?

The last resort, the case where war would have been justified, would have been if we had found WMDs and Saddam refused to destroy them. To a lesser extent, this proof could have consisted of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Saddam was moving said weapons to avoid their discovery by inspectors.

[Guaranteed]

81. "Yeah, pretty much."

Pretty much, what you saw happen is the exact same thing that would have happened if we had waited longer to invade. And Kerry'd be saying the exact same thing right now. Nothing would have changed.

There's no difference between Bush's "last resort" and Kerry's. The outcome is the same.

[kiahzero]

83. Um, no.

"Yeah, pretty much" meant that yes, if we didn't find WMDs, we would pack up and go home.

So yes, a lot of things would have changed.

[Guaranteed]

107. IIRC, we DIDN'T find WMDs. Yet we invaded anyway.

Because we "knew" he had them, remember?

Yeah, things would have been REAL different.

[kiahzero]

109. Kerry has consistently attacked that decision

Are you even reading my posts, or are you so set in your own worldview that you refuse to even think about opposing arguments?

No, we didn't find WMDs. And yes, we did invade anyway. This is where Bush deviates from what Kerry wanted him to do. This is where Kerry keeps attacking Bush on the campaign trail - if you've been listening, Kerry's been consistently hitting the point that Bush rushed to war.

[Guaranteed]

110. Are you reading mine?

Waiting wouldn't have changed anything!

[kiahzero]

111. You're attacking Kerry for Bush's mistake again

Kerry wanted the inspections. If the inspectors didn't find anything, then no force was necessary.

I don't understand what your issue with Kerry's logic is... you've yet to present a sound reason why his logic was flawed.

[Pastiche423]

82. IF

kerry believed whistle ass would do what he promised, then how friggen intelligent does that make kerry?

[kiahzero]

85. What's the point in doing anything, then?

After all, if we can assume that Bush is going to do whatever he wants, no matter what the law says, then it doesn't matter what the Congress does, because Bush will do what he's going to do.

Assume Kerry knew Bush would violate the spirit of the resolution to get into Iraq, what should he have done? If you take that as a given, I fail to see how not having a resolution would have been superior - without a resolution, the Bush Administration would have gone in, probably claiming that the terms of cease fire from the first Gulf War were violated (remember, this was the line that they were pushing in early 2002). At least with the resolution, when Bush decided to go in, he did so on the record that "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."

[Pastiche423]

89. How does that answer my question?

[kiahzero]

99. You are casting the blame on Kerry

You are claiming, in the form of a question, that Kerry should have known that Bush was going to go into Iraq no matter what - assuming that Kerry did not know this. I responded to this claim.

[Pastiche423]

113. Of course I'm casting blame on kerry

He offered up his YES vote w/o researching the issue. Instead of doing his homework, he chose to sentence our young people and innocent Iraqis to death.

Having been in combat himself, he knew his vote meant life or death. There was no immediate threat. Iraq had not attacked our soil. Saddam had not threatened to attack us. There was no reason to rush to war.

Kerry chose pre-emptive war.

[kiahzero]

115. Bullshit

1) Kerry's probably put a hell of a lot more thought than you have, so claiming that he didn't "research the issue" is just plain silly.

2) Kerry's vote didn't "sentence our young people and innocent Iraqis to death." Bush was willing to violate the terms of the resolution to go to war before it became a last resort. Had Kerry been President at the time, we wouldn't have gone to war.

3) Kerry agrees, and has always agreed, that there was no reason to rush to war - that's why he's been attacking Bush for rushing to war. Because he didn't agree with that decision.

[Pastiche423]

116. Not bullshit

1) If kerry probably put a hell of a lot of thought into the vote, then why did he vote the opposite of his constinuents? He's paid to represent his constinuents.

2) Kerry's vote was for war. If he din't want war, he would have voted NO. Kerry's vote DID sentence our precious sons and daughters, as well as innocent civilan Iraqi men, women, children and babies to death.

3) If kerry agreed there was no rush to war, then why did he give whistle ass a blank check? If he agreed, then why din't he vote NO?

Spin it, nuance it, word it anyway you want. It still means the same thing.

He wanted it in October 2002. He now says he would vote the same way, knowing what he knows today.

Kerry wanted a pre-emptive war.

[kiahzero]

119. More bullshit, and right-wing lies, too!

1) I don't see you complaining when representatives from conservative districts vote for liberal issues... I bet there were plenty of constituents of Byrd who were none too pleased with his stance on the war.

2) Here's the lie: Kerry did not vote for war. Kerry voted for the restrictions placed on Bush by the War Powers Act be waived - he did not have to come back to Congress 60 days after he sent troops to Iraq to get authorization for them to stay.

3) Kerry didn't agree that there was no rush to war - If you listened to what Kerry has been saying, you would know that Kerry feels there WAS a rush to war.

Kerry voted for the IWR (which was not the blank check resolution - that was proposed by the Bush Administration and soundly rejected) because he felt that the UN needed a push to get inspectors back into Iraq.

He says that he would vote the same way, and he also says that Bush abused the authority that was given to him.

[Pastiche423]

120. Kerry voted for the war.

Period.

If he did not want to go to war, his IWR vote would have been NO.

[kiahzero]

121. So nice to see DUers drinking Bush Kool-Aid

I'm sure he's pleased that someone's buying his campaign rhetoric. The IWR was not a vote to go into Iraq, and claiming otherwise is just a flat-out lie. It's a lie that Bush is trying to pass off as the truth now, and I can't believe that people are actually buying it.

[Pastiche423]

123. Whistle ass has nothing to do w/kerry's

spinning, nuanced rheteric.

Kerry voted YES on the IWR and stated publically he would vote the same today.

Those are kerry's words. He owns them. No one else owns them. Just kerry.

[kiahzero]

124. None of which changes what IWR meant

Kerry did vote YES on the IWR, and did publically state that he would vote the same today.

None of which changes the nature of the resolution. It did not send troops to Iraq. Claiming so is a lie.

[wuushew]

91. Because it makes it easier to impeach the bastard

going to war without congressional approval improves the chances of either voting the current occupant out of office or ensuring that he ends up in a jail cell.

[kiahzero]

97. Not really

War Powers Act doesn't require Congressional authority for military actions for 60 days after the action begins. 60 days after Bush sent troops into Iraq, we had already toppled the government and were committed to rebuilding.

This is, of course, assuming that the Bush Administration was not successful in its attempts to cast this as simply an extension of the first Gulf War.

[wuushew]

104. Ah..the fighting is still going on

both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Perhaps the fact that we are no longer fighting offical governments but rather groups of insurgents makes it no longer an offical "war".

Then again we were fought the Vietcong in Vietnam and they weren't the regular forces of North Vietnam either.

[kiahzero]

105. It's not that the fighting is still going on that's significant

60 days after Bush sent troops into Iraq, we had already toppled the government and were committed to rebuilding.

That was what I said. It's not that the fighting is over - it's that, when the deadline was going to occur, where if Bush didn't have Congressional approval, it would be irresponsible to pull out, because the existing government had been toppled.

[Guaranteed]

108. We oppose it for the sake of our integrity.

That way, when things go dreadfully wrong, we don't have to take responsibility for it.

[kiahzero]

118. What's wrong with Kerry's logic?

You still haven't demonstrated any issue with it.

If we're "opposing it for the sake of our integrity," shouldn't we make sure that what we're opposing should in fact, be opposed?

Let me be absolutely clear here: The IWR was not where the opposition needed to happen; while it could have been written better, . The opposition needed to happen in March of 2004, when Bush was pushing and pushing for the inspectors to be removed from Iraq before they completed their work.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather Kerry do the right thing and open himself up to Republicans lying about responsibility for the Iraq War, then he do something he doesn't think is right just to simplify it for the masses.

[Guaranteed]

122. Yes, it WAS.

IF in fact you REALLY want to make an issue of whether or not Kerry should have voted for the IWR, I will argue straight up NO, NOT because he KNEW what Bush would do with it, which he did, but because there WAS NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, with or without WMD.

Terrorist groups have one distinct advantage over countries- they don't have a "home" to be attached to. Saddam DID have a home. We knew EXACTLY where to find him. Even if he DID have WMD, he wouldn't have dared in the least to attack us, because his entire country would have been destroyed in the push of a button. And he knew it.

Besides, he had a good gig going. He was the CEO of a many billion dollar oil corporation called Iraq, living the good life. Why fuck that up by attacking or helping someone else to attack a country that would absolutely destroy you? Saddam was an asshole, but he WASN'T an IDIOT.

Don't EVEN act like Saddam was a threat to us. He didn't have SHIT on us.

But to return to your original "point," both Kerry and Bush "knew" that Saddam had WMD- which is the only reason to pass such a resolution as the IWR, and use phrases like "last resort." Given that STUPID assumption, Bush did exactly what he said he was going to do, and Kerry acting like Bush did something that he didn't say he was going to do after giving him that Iraq had WMD is ridiculous.

[Kanary]

84. Thank you very much for clearing that up, because

I can't support an "ooooops"

There were 35,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE, y'know, HUMAN BEINGS in that ooops

If my country can't do better than that, then it doesn't need support.

Kanary

[kiahzero]

87. What are you talking about?

The "oooops" in the post was, "Ooops, no weapons, let's not go to war."

Where do the 35,000 come into play from not going to war?

[Kanary]

88. It sounded like you were saying we go in for a war,

then find the WMDs aren't there, and say 'oooooops' and go home.

Come to think of it, that's what we should do tomorrow..... say "oooops", and bring the troops home.

Sometimes, people try so hard here to be brief, that the meaning gets lost.

A few more words can be a good thing.

Kanary

[kiahzero]

93. Not at all.

Come to think of it, that's what we should do tomorrow..... say "oooops", and bring the troops home.

Right. Because insuring Iraq turns into a failed state is in everyone's best interest. :eyes:

[Kanary]

98. You're right, it's a huge, booming success.

As you say, :eyes:

[kiahzero]

100. I said that?

Where?

[kiahzero]

94. Duptastic

.

[cidliz2004]

25. Not only was Kerry in Washington

but the tone of the country was still subdued from 9/11. The country was trying to believe in 43' and the Democrats were trying to be Non Partisan and trying to put "politics" aside and "support" and "trust" thier President. Everybody, well just about everybody, was trying to act as "One Nation Under God indivisable....who was to know that the bastards in the White House would have so contemptuously exploited all of our good will (including Kerry)". Don't forget what the country was recovering from and what we were all trying to naively believe (not me though, I knew in my gut that these bastards were doing the wrong thing and for the wrong reasons).

I was screaming at the T.V. and the Dems to open their friggin mouths and do something. But after the 2000 election debacle and their silence, then 9/11 and then the march to Iraq....well, the Dems were way off balance and trying to remain "above the frey", trying to put their "best foot forward". So don't be so hard on Kerry or the other Dems. As a whole, I could shoot them, but as a Nation, I understand.

[Egnever]

68. Sory but that doesnt wash,.

Kerry had protestors doing sitins outside his office. He refused to allow them in. He was not in a buble and there were plenty of people screaming at him not to do what he did.

[NightOwwl]

28. The headlines are fudging the truth.

Not only did he "not" say he would have voted to authorize the war, he came right out and accused Bush of misleading the American public.

Boston Globe headline:

Kerry says he'd still vote to authorize Iraq war

Here is what Kerry actually said:

In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.

<ship>

the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

link: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/

[wuushew]

69. Why give the President preemptive war making authority in the first place?

And why is it a good idea to aggressively threaten a sovereign nation? Iraq did nothing to us and any use of force would have been defeated by a vote in the U.N.

It is like the line in The Hunt for Red October where the American is talking to the Russian offical... Having your ships, your aircraft in such proximity to us is inherently dangerous. Wars have started that way Mr. Ambassador

Isn't that what happened in this case? The bluff went bad and resulted in war. How is voting on legislation that increases the likelihood of war a good thing? If Kerry does not see the idiocy of his position he is truly a fool and I wonder why he didn't keep his damn mouth shut.

[cidliz2004]

29. Kerry quote on 12 10 2003 about going into Iraq

Here is what Kerry said Dec. 10 2003 about going into Iraq


“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.”

[athena]

30. You've GOT to post this on the Campaign 2004 forum

... if you haven't done so already. Some people there are accusing him of saying things (at the time) like "If you don't think there are WMDs in Iraq, don't vote for me" -- whatever that means.

[athena]

31. I admire Kerry's eloquence.

He's a very good speaker. He manages to sound both presidential and sincere at the same time. Now, if he were single and a little bit younger ...

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. Let me get this straight...and see if this is what your saying

So long as a fella is a good speaker and sounds both presidential and sincere at the same time...even if he was a real SOB (I'm not saying John is) you would vote for him.

[athena]

47. No, of course not.

Where did you even get that idea? I just really liked the two paragraphs quoted. I thought they were very eloquent.

There are many reasons I like Kerry. He's pro-woman, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-universal-health-care, anti-war (even though he can't come right out and say it and still get elected) ... I'm too tired right now to list them all. He's also very smart and a very good orator. Of course, those two would be negatives, not positives, if I disagreed with his views.

He's also very respectable. The Bush people are making such great efforts to find the smallest thing in Kerry's past that they can blow out of proportion and turn into a scandal. And all they can come up with are lies. Most liberals don't seem to realize how amazing that is.

[NightOwwl]

51. Are you a man?

Because if you were a woman you would know this is not what she is saying...at all.

[NightOwwl]

46. Agreed. He's articulate, intelligent, thoughtful, and nuanced.

Welcome to DU, Athena :hi:

[athena]

55. Thanks!

:hi:

[Sugarbleus]

67. This statement is awesome..it should be made widely public

for every eye to see and digest.

HOWEVER, what the hell were any of them doing bothering with Iraq when the whole idea was to go to find the REAL bad guys who ACTUALLY DID ATTACK US ON OUR SOIL????????

That is the point of contention with many of us out here. IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US. We should have focused on the actual perpetrators of 9/11 and left Saddam to some other time. It's just that simple. That's what everyone is pissed about.

We spent our treasury, lives, and security on a false invasion. We opened the door to more hatred from the middle east and let too many bad guys get away.

Where are we going to get any more money and "might" to continue our efforts to squelch those that would do us harm? We blew it in Iraq.

I'm voting for Kerry anyway, but I'm not excited (at this moment) with his stance or his "laid back" campaigning. I'm thinking that whoever he hired to help him with speeches etc. is simply moronic. Someone should have him out there making the fur fly instead of making gaffs like the one we speak of here. My opinion.

[Larkspur]

128. Kerry is wrong.

The inspecters were already in Iraq before the IWR vote came due, and it was Bill Clinton, not Saddam Hussein, who ordered the weapons inspecters out in 1998, just as Scott Ritter.

[Pastiche423]

33. Did he or did he not

vote YES on the IWR?

He either believed whistle ass, or he din't.

If he believed whistle ass, he's too stupid to be president.

If he did not believe whistle ass, then why did he vote YES?

Did he or did he not state publically that knowing what he knows now, he would still vote YES?

It really is quite simple.

He was and still is for the war.

If you can, w/a clear conscience, (or if you don't give a shit one way or the other) vote for a man that voted YES for the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, then kerry is your man.

If you continue to be in denial of this fact or continue to be an apologist, then how are you different from those people on the opposite side of the aisle?

Less than two years ago, this board was full of outrage about an impending, pre-emptive war. We made plans to protest together. We sent email after email to our representatives. The ratio of anti to pro emails/letters ran 10-1 all over this country. Every senator was bombarded! Massachusetts was no different.

WHERE DID THOSE PEOPLE GO?

There is a solution to this awful predicament we find ourselves in. We can try to persuede kerry to stop playing the "my military dick is bigger than your mlitary dick" bullshit. Otherwise, he will lose many anti-war voters and swing voters.

Is that what he wants? It seems to me than he sure is working hard to lose.

[K-W]

34. He, along with almost all of washington and almost all of the country,

trusted to President to operate in good faith.

If you arent willing to excuse him that mistake, im not sure you are fighting on our side.

Who should we make president then, huh? Bush? What exactly is your point here?

[Pastiche423]

36. Almost all of the country?

Where were you in the ten months before shock and awe?

There were literally millions of people all over the country hitting the streets in protest.

Were you alseep, or what?

[K-W]

41. Almost all is a fairly vague term, I will give you that.

If it makes you feel better pretend I said a majority.

And even some protestors still thought, and most hoped, that Bush would come around.

I agree with you. The system sucks. But where we differ is that I am willing to accept that the system is what it is, and while it sucks, it isnt beyond all hope, nor is it completely useless to us and our causes. So we might as well use it as best we can, rather than giving up on it because it isnt good enough for our ideals.

[Andy_Stephenson]

37. Dupe

dupe dupe dupe

[Andy_Stephenson]

38. It is not the mistake in this case...it is the

affirmation of the mistake that bothers many.

I am still tryin to "get over" the Good Senators Patriot Act and Homeland Gestapo votes.

But that is just me. I like dwelling on the past. It's a good indicator of the future.

[K-W]

44. Well frankly you have no one but yourself to blame.

You are expecting way too much out of the government. If you would get a more realistic perspective on things you wouldnt have to get over things that you should expect to happen in the first place.

[Egnever]

50. Yes close your eyes

"get over it"

be a sheeple and accept your fate like a good amerikun.

lower your expectations so you can avoid disappointment.



:puke:

[Andy_Stephenson]

57. Oh I have a realistic perspective...

I have a realistic perspective and it is quite clear.

[athena]

62. You have to remember ...

that the Senate voted on the Patriot Act right after 9/11/2001 (something like a week later). At that time, nobody knew what was happening; people were terrified. Bush made the senators think that it was important to pass it as quickly as possible to protect the country.

Bush tried to pass Patriot Act II on the anniversary of 9/11 (or a day earlier or later). But he couldn't fool the Senate that time.

[Egnever]

40. That makes him a fool

Bush was building up troop strength even as it went to the floor for debate.

Operate in good faith my ass it was a vote based on political expediency

All the bullshit excuses in the world wont change it.

Lucky for Kerry, Bush has to go.

The second he gets in office though I for one will start working to kick his ass out.

Lying flip flopping no stance taking weasel can kiss my ass!

We deserve better.

I have never in my life been more horrified at my choice of presidential candidates.

[K-W]

48. LETS BE ANGRY TILL WE GET PERFECTION

You are part of the problem. It is fine to want more from government. It is fine to work for more. It is a completely different thing to get so emotional over your dissapointment that you dont approach government rationally with the sole goal of making the world a better place.

[Egnever]

61. lets accept any crumbs they throw us

and sing their praises. Sory but your attitude is the problem.
Its exactly your attitude that allows them to foist off piss poor candidates like this on us.

It takes the people willing to stand up and say we arent going to take this shit anymore to make change hapen. Its not the voices that say "we would like it to hapen but if it doesnt oh well" that create change.

Damn right I am angry. we had a chance for real change ion this country and it was pissed away. So that we could have our choice of bonesmen.

I will lay down like a good soldier and vote for this windbag because bush is that bag but no amount pleading or excuses from you or anyone else will make me appy about it and I sure as hell will not reward this sham with a second term.

I have never before voted for a candidate I didnt believe in this will be my first time doing so and I am damn pissed about it.

If bush were mccain kerry would lose in a landslide. Bank on it.

[Kanary]

71. "Just close your eyes and think of England"

Kanary, another *VERY* pissed person......

[Guaranteed]

59. None of us trusted Bush.

So I think a better question to be asked would be: Is Kerry on OUR side?

[Andy_Stephenson]

35. Come here! I need to wash out your mouth with soap for such

heresey.."my military dick is bigger than your mlitary dick"

:rotfl:

[Pastiche423]

43. In all of my life

I have only had my mouth washed out w/soap once. It was for using the word...









weinie.

I was eight years old. Guess I'll never learn, huh?

[Andy_Stephenson]

45. God I adore you

:yourock:

[Pastiche423]

52. Andy!

[Andy_Stephenson]

125. Ummmm

:blush:

[Kanary]

39. "WHERE DID THOSE PEOPLE GO?"

That's the queston, isn't it?

Further, what will the vote be about the impending Iran attack?

Kanary, glad there are still those with the courage to say it........

[Outward Bound]

58. Nuances, it's all about the nuances..

[deacon]

79. He should be all over bush, bush is why we are there. screw him n/t

[whirlygigspin]

96. round 1

Bush: 1
Kerry: 0


If Kerry can't keep himself from jumping at bait like this...

message to John Kerry:

you have the entire democratic party united behind you for the first time in decades dems are united like never before...please don't fuck it up and hand it to Bush on a silver platter, we're counting on you.

[deacon]

103. In reality it is Kerry 500+ Bush 0-- no wmd, no truth, no integrity

This is "Goring" stuff. Bush is permitted to make 1000 wrong choices, the media scopes Kerry and looks for one thing they can latch on.

If the media had the balls to analyize just ONE bush news conference his numbers would plummet.

But as it goes, "fool me once,er, um, duh, er, um, duh we don't get fooled again"....GW Deserter


Election 2004
War Hero v. Deserter
Take your pick.

[TeacherCreature]

92. Kerry's tempory spine transplant from Dean must have failed

Why is it so hard for him to say he wouldn't have voted for it knowing what he knows now?

[flaminbats]

95. damn!!

reading this makes me wish even more that Cliff Oxford won the runoff in Georgia...

He said in the debate that if more people in Washington achnowledged their mistakes like he does, the war in Iraq never would of happened.

[Disturbed]

112. J Kerry is more acceptable to the Plutocracy

"Did he or did he not state publically that knowing what he knows now, he would still vote YES?

It really is quite simple.

He was and still is for the war."

Yes, he is a I wonder why he is.

* Dean would have been the better candidate but the Plutocracy decided to assasinate him. He said things that disturbed them. Now even he has decided to scale back and roll with the flow. This is the problem when we only have a two party set up and campaign financing that depends on millions.

[shance]

114. Nail meet head.

Absolutely.

The strength we have as Democrats and progressives is in our numbers.

I have spoken with a few top Dems about this and they seem to have little interest in addressing this. I get the feeling they like where they are and they dont want to change it.

However many understand it, but many of the Washingtonians have become so insulated from the *real* world they have become more disconnected from their constituents and more connected with their lifestyle in D.C.

Some only have their own short term interests of gaining more access and power in mind, versus caring enough about telling the truth and doing what is right.

In other words they are weak minded and shouldnt be in elected office to begin with. At the same time, Washington is a hugely seductive arena and its ultimately the system that can ruin otherwise good, decent people. The system needs changes, and as Desmond Tutu said yesterday, there needs to be an influx of feminine (not just women either per se) energy, compassion and care that is absent, as we pour yet more money into killing and to building more killing machines. We need more of a true representation of all cultures and beliefs, not just White Protestant male (and female). And Im speaking as a white female.

When we realize this and discipline ourselves to look at the big pic, and build a family of friends and community,
we will be the force that overcomes the pain and cruelty being inflicted by those who are totally out of touch with humanity and sanity overall.

[Larkspur]

129. Regarding Dean's support of Kerry

Dean is fulfilling a promise he made during the primary campaign -- he'd enthusiastically support the Dem nominee, if it wasn't himself. But Dean's full support and the ABB coalition expires right after the election results come due on Nov. 2. Dean's new group, Democracy for America, is a PAC he created to keep the movement he led for almost a year alive and ready to continue the fight against corporate special interests, whether Kerry or Bush are in the White House.

[Ducks In A Row]

117. yet again, someone falls into the right-wing media's trap

what they're saying Kerry said, he didn't. But it's too hard for people to find out. Which we have to because we should also know not to trust the media.

Here's something to do. Download, by right-clicking

http://wilem.com/rrs/rrs_20040811_001.mp3

randi explains all.

[LisaM]

126. I love Mike Webb. But he hates John Kerry

he's convinced that Kerry used Florida-like tactics to "steal" the primaries from Dean, and that primary votes in Washington were altered to make Kerry the winner. I don't think this is true (everything checked out in my primary) but he is just bitter about the Dean loss and simply cannot accept that Dean isn't the nominee. He doesn't like much about Kerry, including his persona and his wife, and he is fighting an internal war with himself over this. He fails, imo, to see that Dean and Kerry are not really that different on many issues and Kerry is more liberal on some. He also fails to see that Dean blew through $40 million in a couple of months and ran out of money for the long primary season.