NYT: Kerry Says His Vote on Iraq Would Be the Same Today

[Scairp]

This is a Wilgoren piece, and I do believe her editors have spoken to her regarding the cheap and nonsensical garbage she has been churning out the past several months on her assignment to cover the Kerry campaign. Her most recent pieces haven't had such a nasty tone and been as completely pointless as they were before. I wonder if it will last until the election. Anyway, I still think she's a bitch.

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 - Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.
<snip>

"My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "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?"


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html

[moondust]

1. I'll bet

Senator Byrd wouldn't change his vote either which, incidentally, was correct. There was never any reason to nullify the Constitution.

[LondonAmerican]

2. This is very bad

Since there never was any reason for war, there never was any reason to vote to support use of force -- regardless of how 'diplomatic' the presidential threat to use it would have been.

What is Kerry smoking? Is he against this war or not? I am starting to fear that he is actually for it, just that he 'would have done it differently' as if that is any consolation.

[Disturbed]

3. Having read J. Kerry's speech before the vote...

I have felt that J. Kerry believed that Saddam had to be overthrown, all along. J. Edwards believed and still believes that, as well. I don't know their actual reasons but I suspect that the oil and the Euro could be the reasons. Was Kerry that naive to believe that Dumbass would wait for the usual Allies to be on board before the invasion began? If so, then he was a lot less astute of a politician that anyone thought. I feel that he, along with most Dems, felt it would be a real short take over and voted accordingly. The fact that the Iraqis are resisting being colonized again seems to have caught the Neo Fascists and Dems by surprise.

[UdoKier]

4. The Clintons both supported it too.

Kerry should be very grateful that he is running against Bush.

[Veggie Meathead]

15. I am very disappointed in John Kerry's refusal to acknowledge

that facts that have become public knowledge after the invasion make rethinking of his and others' vote absolutely mandatory.Because the war is partially in support of Ariel Sharon's policies with regard to the Palestinians and Kerry's unqualified support for Israel, I believe he is continuing his stand in favor of the IWR.I have decided to vote for Kerry-Edwards and call them on this question after they win.This is best left unchallenged for the time being.

[Snivi Yllom]

16. Kerry was for it, isn't it clear enough to you

All his 'posturing' during the primary was just that. To throw the antiwar cloak over himself and proclaim "really, I am against the war".

I saw this coming a mile away and am not surprised.

[LondonAmerican]

18. Well it is sad

... another neocon democrat.

I wish Dean hadn't been destroyed by the neocon slime machine.

[K-W]

5. This has been discussed ad nauseum yesterday, and it is important to note

that Kerry believes that the threat of force was vital to securing proper inspections. He believes that it was appropriate to threaten war, but certainly not to wage it the way Bush did. The language of the IWR supports Kerry on this.

Lets not go overboard.

[teryang]

10. The language of the IWR is supports anything

there are scores of whereas which amount to pitiful rationalizations for a complete abdication of power.

[K-W]

12. Not true at all.

But I really dont want to debate this here, this is a dupe thread in the wrong forum.

The IWR was carefully phrased to be exactly what John Kerry needs it to be now, and as democrats who want him elected, there is little point in us nitpicking it now. I John Kerry perfect on the issue of Iraq, far from it. Do we need him to beat bush desperately, you bet. He made a plotically savvy move on the IWR vote that rubs anti-war people, myself included, the wrong way. But it was politically savvy and we should let him use the wiggle room he and the democrats secured for themselves in that resolution.

[teryang]

22. I guess you haven't read it

It is replete with scores of rationalizations intended to be used in hindsight as a CYA for those who signed it.

It is probably one of the most pathetic and disgraceful Congressional documents ever written.

[LondonAmerican]

17. Since Kerry knows now that there were no WMD

why on earth does he say he would still cast the same vote? No WMD, no need to 'put on pressure for inspections.'

I am just amazed at how incoherent his position is.

[K-W]

6. I direct you to this thread, a must read and in the right forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x605385

[moondust]

7. But I'm not interested in joining yesterday's discussion.

What is a person to do?

[K-W]

8. That thread isnt really that old, and it is in the right forum.

Id suggest putting your two cents in over there and hoping people still want to discuss it with you.

[moondust]

9. As I said,

I'm not interested in joining yesterday's discussion. Your suggestion doesn't interest me.

[K-W]

11. Well, i dont know what to tell ya.

Here you have to discuss issues of the 2004 election in the 2004 election forum, and here you are generally expected to not make duplicate threads just because you want to discuss the issue in the thread you posted in the wrong forum.

geez

[moondust]

13. I'd suggest

you let the moderators do their jobs and volunteer for such duty in the future if that's what gets you off. Thnx.

[K-W]

14. So now I have to be a moderator to try and be helpful to someone.

Interesting.

Perhaps next time someone refers you to the right place to discuss the thing you apparently wanted to discuss you could give them a thank you rather than explaining that you dont want to discuss it there, you want to discuss it here.

[cheezus]

19. so go tattle to a moderator

it's not like every post doesn't have a little "alert" button. Would have been better than hijacking this thread (oooooohh... salty)

[MadHound]

20. Well, Kerry finally comes clean,

And declares himself to be just as much of a war hawk as Bush. Truly sad, and doesn't bode well for the future.

So let's see here, Kerry is down with the IWR and the Iraq war, even though it has been proven to be based on lies and bullshit. Kerry is down with so-called "free trade", even though it is causing misery, lost jobs, and lost wages here at home. Kerry is down with corporate tax cuts, in some vague notion that they will bring about some sort of trickle down job growth. Kerry is down with the Patriot act, vowing to "reform" it rather than doing away with the damn thing.

So the differences between the two is in two areas, difference in style, and difference in Supreme Court appointments. Otherwise, it looks to me like we've got Bush and Bush lite.

A sad state of affairs friends. I can see that the debates are going to be a replay of '00, when the moderator got so frustrated that he finally asked Bush and Gore just what were the differences between the two. And they shrugged their shoulders, looking sheepish. I guess we're going to be seeing that same shoulder shrug again this year:eyes:

[Gyre]

21. Idiot!

Bush lied to the nation, including congress, to get support to attack a foreign nation. Kerry said he would've also invaded Iraq. So what pretext(s) would Kerry have used? The country never would've supported an attack of that magnitude if told the truth.

Kerry has squandered a chance to illustrate to the American people that Bush lied them into "war". He also alienates his base because there was no good reason to attack Iraq and we know it. Dumbshit plays right into Bush's hands IMO. :grr:

Gyre