St.Pete Times hammers Kerry & Edwards

[artr2]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/23/Opinion/An_impasse_on_Iraq.shtml

<snip>
Yet some prominent Democrats, including some of the party's presidential contenders, seem more interested in scoring political points than in building real accountability in Iraq. For example, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina both voted last fall to give President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq. But now that the war has become less popular, particularly among core Democratic voters, Kerry and Edwards are among the senators who say they will oppose the entire $87-billion aid package if it is not tailored to their liking. That position may give a temporary boost to their presidential campaigns, but it will do more permanent damage to their reputations for seriousness.

Many members of Congress in both parties failed their responsibility when they rushed to give the president authority to wage a pre-emptive war. Some failed to ask basic questions about the grave military and economic commitments our government was about to make. Others failed their own consciences by ignoring their misgivings and supporting what was then a politically popular cause. Now that the political winds have shifted, they are compounding their irresponsibility.

<snip>
Those are principled positions, whether or not one agrees with them. The same can't be said for the contorted positions of those members of Congress whose earlier support for the war, like their current opposition, has been based on little more than political calculation.

[Cha]

1. Well whata know? The St Pete Times does it again!

I like this newspaper and I love St Pete!

Thanks for this, artr2!

[UnapologeticLiberal]

2. I don't know

I kind of give them credit for voting against the $87 billion, since it passed overwhelmingly. For Kerry, especially, I think it was a way to correct a mistake...now if only he would admit he made a mistake last year.

[Bombtrack]

3. you mean one biased editorial hammers them

this is unfounded guesswork, the author of this piece and you Dean people are applying motives when you obviously have no credible way of substantiting the accusation.
by the same logic of this author, it's sneeky of Ted Kennedy to critisize Bush on no child left behind even though he co-authored it.

Right? Where is the difference.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Support for the President does not = support for a "war"

I notice this spin recently and it is :puke: disgusting.
Kerry did the honorable thing which most Americans agree with: support the president to do the right thing. It is not Kerry's fault Bush is a lying boob surrounded by incompetent cronies. Kerry did the right thing.

This trashing of Kerry is disgusting. And now all he is asking for is accountability on the 87 billion and he is trashed yet again.
If there were ever a time when liberals should rally behind Kerry it is now.

[Bombtrack]

5. aren't you going to defend Edwards as well?

I honestly don't know why either of them voted the way they did on anyone. But knowone has ever come up with any indication or evidence that they were ever being ingenuous. It's sad that crap like this is considered journalism

[Hep]

6. so uh

What did Kucinich know that Kerry didn't?

Kerry gave BUSH the choice. You say that's the right thing. I don't know how. It's one thing to believe Hussein had WMD's, and it's one thing to believe that he has to go, but as a legislator to give away your power of checks and balances, well, how is that the right thing?

Liberals will stand behind Kerry when he makes use of some of that surplus of bravery and patriotism and says, "I made a mistake when I voted for the IWR. I did the wrong thing" in stead of making excuses like you are for him.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Kerry and Edwards didn't make the mistake

Bush did. So there's nothing to apologize for.

[fla nocount]

7. I love this nasty tempered little paper.

Can you tell they're an independent? They have no friends and they want none except their reader's. They've repeatedly beat the hell out of B. Graham over Cuba, the environment and sugar interests. It's the Sac Bee east.

[lostnfound]

11. It's a great paper and it's owned by a nonprofit journalism institute..

set up by the original founder of the paper so that the paper would always stay independent.

One of the 10 best in the country and I'm pretty sure it's the only one of the 10 that isn't owned by some big megachain.

On edit: I grew up there and got spoiled so I'm a big fan.

[blm]

8. What baloney.

Bush was given the tools and the chance to act the way a president should act in matters of war. He is the one who proved he can't handle the task competently. To ask for the extra money to come from outlandish taxcuts for the wealthy is not an extreme political calculation. It's asking those who are profiting the most to some measure of sacrifice, instead of burdening those who have sacrificed much already.

[Eloriel]

10. That's exactly the way I see it

And I'm highly amused at all the hysterical jumping up and down, "Kerry did the right thing, Bush blew it."

It was Kerry's job to know Bush wasn't trustworthy.

BOTH these votes -- the war vote then, the $87 billion now -- are mere political calculations by two too-unprincipled men with ambitions.

Eloriel