Re: Kerry's reaffirmation of Iraq War vote. Don't fall for Rove's ploy.

[Skinner]

I'm a little dismayed to see so many people falling for this most recent campaign ploy. Congratulations, you are responding in exactly the manner Karl Rove wants you to respond. Allow me to explain.

Why is everyone talking about Kerry's Iraq war vote right now? Here's why:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush07.html (Go ahead, read it.)

This was a smart political ploy on Bush's part. But it's still a ploy. Don't fall for it! The purpose of Bush forcing Kerry to say "yes or no" is to create a no-win situation for Kerry, where he either 1) pisses off the anti-war left, or 2) pisses off independent voters who are generally inclined to rally 'round the flag on issues of national security. Either way, he loses. That's why Bush/Rove set the trap.

Kerry responded in THE ONLY WAY HE COULD RESPOND: 1. Reaffirm his vote so that he appears firm and decisive on national security and so he does not reinforce the Rovian caricature that he is a flip-flopper; and 2. Explain how he thinks Bush fucked up with the authority he was given.

If Kerry had responded, "yeah, I fucked up," then what would have happened? He would have gotten cheers on DU, but little else. There is no political upside for Kerry to say that his vote was a fuck up.

I think many people here just don't understand that to the Average American, national security is the number one priority right now. Any candidate that gives the appearance that he's unwilling to fight to protect the US is TOAST.

So, Kerry did what he had to do. He portrays himself as is firm, decisive, and consistent, and then lays the blame for the war at Bush's feet. He fudged it.

But even though Kerry responded in the only way he possibly could, some people are still falling for the Rovian trap.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM ONE WEEK AGO. Kerry's position on the war is the same. The only difference is that Rove came up with a way to remind you that you didn't like Kerry's war vote, so now we've got a bunch of people saying that they're not going to vote for him.

Don't fall for it! Those sleazy fuckers on the other side will try anything to divide us. They have no shame, and they'll do anything to win. Be strong! Don't let them divide us! Don't fall for it!

[jjmalonejr]

1. Bless you, Skinner!

Kerry is playing this EXACTLY right.

[coloradodem2005]

2. I am only asking questions.

I make a point of not falling for the old Rove tricks. The only reason I asked questions about Iran is to generate a discussion. I have practically made a point of not believing anything this administration says.

[sangh0]

3. The anti-war left is risking discrediting it's opposition to war

by engaging in cannibalism and spreading inaccduracies about Kerry and the IWR vote. They complain about how the DLC and the DNC disregards them and their opinions, but they do not exhibit much ability to regard the opinions of Democrats who disagree with them.

[Skinner]

9. As I said...

Don't let them divide us. Browbeating the "anti-war left" plays into Rove's hands as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

46. That is because we only have two choices and you have insured

we have none when it comes to the war. Furthermore, you are only 5% of the democratic party which in a fair system would mean our position should be the official one. Not yours.

[PVnRT]

51. Well, then, stay home

Because obviously Kerry is just as bad as Bush, right? :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

58. On this issue yes

I won't stay home. I am going fucking do everything I can to make sure prowar dems are disloged from the leadership of the party though. I am holding a grudge for their smugness.

[GreenArrow]

162. yeah, especially since the anti-war left

has been wrong in every particular.

[ScreamingMeemie]

170. That is totally untrue sangh0, and that is all I am going to say about

that. I am speaking as a Mom here. A mom with a 14 year old daughter seriously considering a career in the military. A mom with a 6 year old son,whose blood I never want spilled in the name of monetary gain for rich, fat chickenhawks. I am going to be angry at any suggestion of inside politics or subterfuge, by the party I affiliate myself with. Because it will only bring me one step closer to my worst fear. The loss of one of my children for no apparent reason other than greed.

Thanks, Laura

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. It's like Clinton said...people would rather have a leader that is wrong

and strong, than right and appearing to be weak.

[GreenArrow]

163. It's like Henry Clay said

"I'd rather be right than President." He was what, a three time loser? Nowadays, however, in this era of steely eyed pragmatism, the preference is to win rather than being right. Cold comfort.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. God it would be nice to have a dem that voted against the stupid IWR

. Choosing won that did played into Roves hands.

[Skinner]

8. It's too late for that.

We've got a candidate that voted for IWR. He was nominated a week and a half ago. He's our guy.

[VolcanoJen]

17. AMEN, and, consider the alternative.

Thanks for this post, Skinner.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. He's our guy, and he is hostile to us. We have no where to go

and he is taking advantage of it. We will end up hostile back, and the advisors that are advising this piss on you antiwar voters stategy will get their Karma eventually, hopefully after the election. In the meantime, I don't have to pretend that that Rove is making Kerry say things specifically to discourage antiwar people. Kerry is doing it on purpose.

I think the dlcers being the provietnam hippy haters that they were want us to drop out and become disenchanted and cynical like the fucking hippies. They love apathy. They love to have elections be only about abortion and gun control, and want no daylight with the repukes on the economy or national security.

[Skinner]

41. Kerry is not "hostile" to you.

He has a different position on the Iraq war than you do. That doesn't make him hostile to you, it just means you disagree.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. and the majority of American now opposed to this war

have no choice in this election. Both parties are rigged and they are way hostile. The whole system is, and I don't have to pretend otherwise. He and his supporters have stifled any alternative voice. Don't claim that isn't hostility.

[emulatorloo]

48. Sorry I disagree

maybe you find that hostile, but I ain't hostile.

I never supported the war, but I support john kerry, can understand his position, et cetera.

Both Dean and Kucinich support john kerry, and Kucinich put it well when he said that Kerry could be trusted with Power.

Kucinich also put it well when he said that Dems have issues to work on, but the biggest issue is to GET BUSH OUT> I am paraphrasing from an floor interview I saw at Dem convention. . . .

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Strawman

I have already admitted there is no alternative to Kerry. I am voting against Bush, but that is it. I still don't understand his position and I still think he says these things just specifically to make the point that we antiwar voters are politically marginalized. It's a prowar dem doing a touchdown dance, just to rub it in.

[emulatorloo]

66. Touchdown Dance? Hostile?

He said what he said because he was asked about it at behest of GWB.

And He said other things too, that you are ignoring. There was a big BUT> > > > >and that but was anything but "hostility" to you.

<snip>

But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack on President Bush'sprosecution of the war, saying he had not used the Congressional authority effectively.

"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?"

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/campaign/10kerry.html?ex=1093148035&ei=1&en=be262e45751d6d66

[Classical_Liberal]

71. A plan to win the peace means he is just pissed off about how

bad the occupation is going. It isn't against the occupation, or the war for that matter. He is saying Bush botched the war, not that there shouldn't have been one. Whoopdi Do. It's a touchdown dance alright. Neener neener neener. We control the party even though we are only 5% of it.

[Hutzpa]

177. Hey Pal!!! you sound intelligent yet brainwashed, is it

so had to understand what is going on, or you just don't want to know, because it is obvious what those 'little Hitlers' are planning on the other side, they are precisely going after the undecided, people like yourself who just could not make their mind up.

NO disrespect meant but use your head and make comparison, does Kerry strikes you as the man who will leave you behind or does he come across as the man that will offer his hand, think about it, if you know his past...then I suppose you should know the answer.


:think:

[PVnRT]

56. Yeah

And many of those people who not oppose the war SUPPORTED IT TO BEGIN WITH.

Yeah, Kerry disagrees with you on ONE FUCKING TOPIC, ergo he is the enemy. Grow up.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. It isn't just one topic with me.

I didn't support it to begin with and neither did the public. There was a brief time of support after the fucking thing started but it was the rally around the troops attitude when we thought maybe it was winnable, not support.

I disagree about the budget and the economy as well, not to mention national health insurance.

[PassingFair]

165. Grow up?

That "ONE FUCKING TOPIC" just happens to be pre-emptive W-A-R!

Just how grown up do you have to be to "support" that?

[PVnRT]

182. What the hell is it with you people?

Because I don't agree with you, I support the war? Whatever. Get a clue.

[blondeatlast]

102. We're in this; and many of us who opposed the war see the only

way out is to get rid of the current administration.

W has NO interest in ending the war in Iraq--absolutely none.

John Kerry does--a possible re-election.

[emulatorloo]

15. I disagree w you

Rove would be making more hay out of that, and indy/swing voters would have a hard time relating to a snarky "I told you so" candidate.

a lot of voter believed the president when he said saddam was a threat.

now they see the president exagerrated lied etc etc etc.

they "supported" IWR, and support the concept of non-proliferation of WMDs.
now they see it was a sham

The Kerry position resonates more with them than "I told you so"

[Classical_Liberal]

22. How does it resonate when he won't even say it was wrong.

anyway, voting against it, isn't a snarky I told you so. Also if the democrats had made more of a fuss there wouldn't have been so many people who fucking fell for it.

The only real snotty snarks are the prowar dems who are in the advisor positions, who in fact should be replaced with Dems that had better judgement. These statements by Kerry aren't just mistakes in my view, they are actually designed to dispirit antiwar people.

[emulatorloo]

26. it resonates because

the concept of defending the US from imminent threat is not WRONG

even if the what GWB did was wrong.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. nobody said it was wrong.

. There was no eminant threat. Kerry said as much and said he would vote for the resolution anyway.

[blondeatlast]

103. If you take it that personally, you're doomed. It's politics. nt

[freedom_to_read]

6. hear hear [eom]

[nycmjkfan]

7. The anti-war folk

Are going to vote for Kerry regardless, its the moderate person that Kerry needs to attract. Is he selling out his base? Not really. If the 2000 vote showed anything, its that there is indeed a difference between Dem and GOP and that Nader is a loon.

You're not going to please all of the people anyways. I don't agree with the Iraq War, but understand Kerry's predicament in the matter.

[goodhue]

20. I know many anti-war folk on the fence about Kerry.

Today's statement does not help me convince them to vote for Kerry. Best to just avoid Iraq altogether and lobby them on choice, but they always bring it back to the war. If Kerry looses here in MN, it will be because of the anti-war vote not voting for him. It is a real concern.

Remember Nader got 6% in in 2000, and Gore squeaked in with a victory nonetheless. The left-swing is why Minnesota is a swing state this year.

Check out latest polling in MN . . .
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/minnesota080504.htm

Below are the results of a four-day poll of likely voters in the critical battleground state of Minnesota for the presidential race. Results are based on telephone interviews with 801 likely voters in Minnesota, aged 18+, and conducted July 31-August 3, 2004. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

1. If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush—Cheney or Kerry—Edwards?

Bush—Cheney 45%
Kerry—Edwards 49%
Undecided 6%

2. If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush—Cheney, Kerry—Edwards, or Nader—Camejo?

Bush—Cheney 45%
Kerry—Edwards 47%
Nader—Camejo 3%
Undecided 5%

[George_Bonanza]

10. Thanks for the support Skinner

This is probably the nadir of Kerry's campaign and we need to hang tough.

[movonne]

11. This should be kept up on the board...as I see many, many threads

about this subject.

[Jacobin]

12. Too bad Kerry didn't stay out of the trap by voting no to begin with

I'm saving my canned email from Kerry from back during the Iraq invasion debate, when I implored him to lead the fight against another Viet Nam, where he gave me all the good reasons we should invade.

Disgusting.

Damage control is all that is left for Kerry which is NOT the way it had to be.

[goodhue]

13. I agree that it is a Rovian ploy

But disagree that there has been no change.

Until now Kerry had said it was the correct vote given evidence at the time. Now he says it was correct vote even with out WMDs, thereby totally ceding the issue to Bush. It was a Rovian ploy and Kerry fell for it.

[ClassWarrior]

18. So? Your point? Kerry's still light years better than the alternative.

[goodhue]

38. Yes obviously better.

But I spend a lot of time arguing with anti-war folks who no longer consider themselves democrats about why they should be voting for Kerry. This semantic change by Kerry that he would vote to authorize force even if no WMD will be very problematic in convincing them to vote for Keryy. It is not my vote that I'm worried about.

[ClassWarrior]

87. Understood.

[Maddy McCall]

14. Thank you for making this statement, Skinner...

Maybe this will put the quiatus to the anti-Kerry threads that have become all to common in the past couple of days.

:yourock:

[snippyMcNippy]

47. I don't consider all criticism of Kerry as Anti-Kerry

Many people have strong feelings about issues and need to express their thoughts. I'm sure 99.99% will still be ABB so there is no need to condemn them for expressing their minds.

[Maddy McCall]

164. When did Skinner become snippyMcNippy???

Since you apparently know nothing about the reason I was expressing my gratitude to him, I suggest you check out my post in the Ata forum.

[madfloridian]

16. It hurts though. It hurts to be criticized for being anti-war .

Especially on a board which was once intensely against this war. It is quite painful to see the anger when the war is questioned.

It is a sad war which has changed the world view toward our country, and it is hard to be ok with it.

We donated to Kerry, and we will vote for him though we disagree with him and Edwards on that issue and others. However, it hurts when people say we should not question it.

That war was done in our name, in my name. It is bankrupting us, and taking money from programs for seniors....which we are. It is a sad thing, and it is hard to be ok with it.

We will vote for Kerry, and we donated. I would like the right to question,though.

[sangh0]

23. NO one is criticizing you for being anti-war

and if they are, send me the link.

People are getting heat for blaming Kerry for the war, instead of Bush*

[Skinner]

24. Nobody is asking you to be okay with the Iraq war.

I am still totally opposed to it, as are the vast majority of the people on this website. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you can't or shouldn't question the war.

But we need to be strong in the face of attacks like this. Our opponents are trying to divide us, because they have to in order to win. Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

[madfloridian]

25. Trying, but most of us still think both are for empire.

I hate thinking it. I don't want us to become that.

[sangh0]

30. If you are against empire

then don't let them split you up from the rest of us who also are against imperialism, but may disagree with you over some issues.

[blm]

83. Some think it because they WANT to think it.

The day some realize that your candidate supported a version of the IWR - Biden-Lugar - that was NOT significantly different than the IWR Kerry voted for, the better off the left would be.

I just can't stand the deliberate obtuseness that concludes that the IWR and those who voted for it are to blame instead of blaming Bush for not implementing the IWR honestly.

Some are sincere about it, but others are deliberately obtuse to foster division on the left.

[madfloridian]

92. And which am I, blm?

And this has nothing to do with my candidate. It has to do with what my country is about. When you know which I am, let me know.

[blm]

129. Why would you even ask that after all this time?

And it isn't about your candidate, it's about the disingenuousness when his supporters praise him to the sky while railing against Kerry on an issue where they were NOT significantly different in their actual positions taken back when the IWR was being voted on.

I call foul when I see foul.

[madfloridian]

135. WHOA! When did this turn into a Dean thing, blm?

That is what surprised me about your post. This is about Kerry's vote and his standing firmly by it. This thread, started by Skinner, had nothing to do with Dean.

I am against this Iraq invasion because it was wrong, both morally and politically. It was and is the biggest error our country has ever made.

You are trying to turn it into an attack on Dean and his supporters, and that is just dead wrong as well.

We are in Iraq, we should not be there. I am truly worried, and it has not one damn thing to do with Howard Dean. My husband has already got word that his drug coverage is being cancelled when the Medicare bill goes into effect in 2005. The only option is being forced into an HMO. Yet they are spending unknown fortunes in Iraq.

My drug coverage will also be cancelled because they can....the law to stop companies from doing it was not upheld.

Did you know the bail-out fund for pensions is nearly bankrupt? Did you? It is money going to Iraq again.

This war was wrong. Dead wrong.

[blm]

153. You want it both ways. Sing praises of Dean's Biden-Lugar position while

condemning Kerry for the IWR vote when they were ESSENTIALLY the same. Bush would have ditched the provisions of the B-L just as easily as he did the IWR.

Now you want to extrapolate and blame Kerry's IWR vote for your drug coverage?

I'm sorry for what you're going through, but it's NOT because of the IWR. That just lets Bush off the hook. Blame Bush for not IMPLEMENTING the IWR honestly. If he had, we wouldn't be in Iraq. I

t's PURE HORSESHIT to blame the IWR or anyone who voted for it to get the weapons inspectors back in Iraq.

[madfloridian]

155. I don't like Dean's position on it either. Why did you bring Dean up?

Why did we go to Iraq in the first place? Which reason? You know it was wrong.

Yes, I blame not only the war but the tax cuts on the cutting of the programs for seniors that our country has had.

I equally blame anyone who voted for it. Now tell me again which reason we went there?

[blm]

158. Because you implied you don't trust Kerry to be different than Bush.

And you base it on his IWR vote. You do NOT judge Dean by that same standard based on his Biden-Lugar support at that same time.

Sorry, but Kerry's whole career is so UNLIKE Bush in every way. You don't trust it, well, then i'd say there's something wrong with yor perception.

I think it's time to stop pissing on him. You're SO wrong about him.

[madfloridian]

160. That is so not true, blm. Why are you inserting Dean in this?

I do not know what is going here. I never mentioned Dean's name in this issue. I do not argue about Biden Lugar. Others might, but I don't understand it. I hold every congressman who voted for the war accountable. This is a horrible time in our history. How many hundreds in Fallujah and Najah have we killed lately? How many of ours are dead?

I am sorry, but I will vote for Kerry and Edwards. However unless they convince me otherwise, I believe they are about the imperialism. I think they will both be kinder and plan better, but if they are not for our remaking of the middle east they should say so.

[sangh0]

188. Becuase you have a double standard

You don't trust Kerry because of his position on Iraq, but you trust Dean even though his position was almost identical to Kerry's.

And that's not a criticism of Dean's position or his supporters. It's a criticism of the double standard YOU use.

[emulatorloo]

29. Nobody IS "FOR THE WAR" or criticising you for being Anti-War

EOM

[madfloridian]

34. Yes, people who are anti-war are being criticized here.

It happens all the time.

[sangh0]

35. Not for being anti-war

Everyone on DU gets criticized from time to time, but no one is being attacked for being anti-war.

[blondeatlast]

106. Where? Links, please--I've got a few words for those who do;

in my experience, a miniscule minority on DU.

[marlakay]

85. I feel the same way

I can't even talk about it because I keep thinking that people on the right are going to use everything we say negative about Kerry against us.

[blondeatlast]

105. Who criticizes the anti-war folks (as I consider myself to be)?

Give me specifics (links), I'll help to take them on.

I only have problems with people on the boards who can't see that we have no other viable alternative than the Dem candidate.

[sangh0]

187. The silence is defeaning

Some people know how to broadcast their sense of being offended, but can't seem to back up their accusations with a link.

[democratreformed]

19. I guess they are playing with that little shadow of doubt that some may

still have. Well, I REFUSE to let them play with me any more. I made a decision to accept the war vote. I made a decision to put the future of our nation above that one vote. I made a decision to trus John Kerry. And I AM STANDING BY THAT DECISION to the very end.

The Repub election machine can just "SHOVE IT"!!!

[hippiegranny]

21. thank you skinner

and you're right. KERRY IS OUR GUY. There is no coulda shoulda woulda anymore that changes the reality that it will either be KERRY or BUSH for the next four years.

With two Supremes getting ready to hang up their robes right after the election (what does that tell you about who THEY think/hope is gonna win?) there is no issue that Rove et al can come up with that should be able to make any of us who truly consider ourselves progressive change our minds or stay home. And that is only one huge issue, we all know there are many many more.

[zulchzulu]

27. I've talked with one-issue anti-war folks and they just don't get it

Doing grassroots stuff for Kerry, I occasionally run into people that say they can't support Kerry due to his vote on the IWR. Still! They don't get what is really at stake in this election.

Kerry will be handed Bush's war like someone transferring a tumor from one lung to another. It's not going to be easy to fix the problem.

The people who squeal that they won't vote for Kerry are usually pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor and for healthcare reform. Apparently, they'd rather sacrifice all those issues for a myopic and generally uninformed opinion.

As someone said, voting this year is not an artistic statement. Kerry is not perfect, but he will be a far better leader of the Free World when he gets elected. He never "voted for the war". He voted for the UN and international cooperation to deal with Iraq. I've typed this same stuff over the year a thousand times.

Like Skinner says, let's keep the eye on the ball. Chimpy must go at all costs.

[snippyMcNippy]

49. At all costs?

No, even ABBers have limits. Kerry just has not crossed the line yet...

[zulchzulu]

90. ABBers are usually uninformed about Kerry

I have found that to be the case.

[snippyMcNippy]

157. Yes, but it's the "at all costs" that scares me

Of course America would be better served by a Democrat...Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK etc prove this point but when I see "at all costs" to unseat a president I must try to quantify exactly how far "at all costs" will go.

I don't want to see a civil war that kills millions to make a political point. You know what I mean?

[GreenArrow]

168. ABBers are usually informed about Kerry

which is one of the reasons they are ABB.

[zulchzulu]

175. Every discussion I have with an ABBer tends to prove they don't know Kerry

I've seen it and heard it many times. Some think Kerry is pro-life, a war criminal, anti-labor, not good on the environment, anti-gay, etc.

[GreenArrow]

180. maybe that's because in his desire to be "nuanced"

people don't know what he actually believes. George Bush, loathesome as he is, spells things out in black and white, puts things in simple terms. Like it or not, you know where he stands. And when he lies, he still puts it in the same sort of terms.

Most people I know who are ABB just see Kerry as not Bush. He may be more sympathetic than Bush (how could he not be!) on nearly every major issue, but he is still seen as a representative of a SYSTEM that is bankrupt. They are more capable of nuanced thought than the average Bush supporter, but that doesn't mean they can't appreciate someone spelling out what they believe (or even claim to believe) in clear, simple terms. It's a resistance to what native Americans called speaking with a forked tongue. When Bush lies, he flat out lies. When Kerry lies, he doesn't so much lie as equivocate; there often seems to be an ambiguity to what he says.

[GreenArrow]

167. if you think Iraq is only one issue

you are missing the forest for the trees. Iraq is an emblem signifying the direction this country is taking, both domestically and globally.

I will vote for Kerry, not because he's great, but because Busgh and his gang are a nasty bit of work. But to be fair, Bush is only a figurehead.

[elperromagico]

28. I concur completely. n/t

[unfrigginreal]

31. He didn't need to reaffirm his vote and he should stop doing it

because you are right he is in a lose/lose situation because of his vote.

He should bat these questions away with something like:

"Now is not the time for hypothetical questions, but time to answer some of the real questions in the mind of most Americans"

And then just dovetail into some of the remarks made today by Rand Beers:

Mr. President, knowing what you know now, do you still believe that you made no mistakes in how you took this country to war? Do you really have no regrets about sending many of our troops into battle without body armor to save their lives? Do you believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq without a plan to win the peace? Do you wish you had done things differently so our troops and the American people wouldn't have to bear the burden in Iraq almost alone?

The issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. It's time for George W. Bush to come clean with the American people about his Iraq policy.

[blondeatlast]

108. This is the kind of criticism that helps.

Kerry-doubters, take note; no one will criticize YOU for debate like this.

By the way, Kerry has been repeating the last paragraph in nearly every speech.

The war is here, and W won't get us out.

[madfloridian]

143. Rand Beers does not say the war was wrong at all.

Here is the quote from your post. This really surprised me when I read each word. It is not against the war at all.

QUOTE:...."Mr. President, knowing what you know now, do you still believe that you made no mistakes in how you took this country to war? Do you really have no regrets about sending many of our troops into battle without body armor to save their lives? Do you believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq without a plan to win the peace? Do you wish you had done things differently so our troops and the American people wouldn't have to bear the burden in Iraq almost alone?

The issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. It's time for George W. Bush to come clean with the American people about his Iraq policy."

It rather sounds as though he thought it was done incorrectly. It was done in the wrong way, but it should never have happened at all.

[unfrigginreal]

179. I agree with you MF but I don't expect Kerry to say it was wrong...

at this point. Yeah, it would be nice but, taking the politics into consideration and realizing how he voted on IWR, I'd be happy if he would just quit saying it was the right thing to do. Let Bush squirm with answering why the Iraq invasion was the right move, let Kerry keep him squirming by asking the questions about why it was done the way it was done.

[stellanoir]

32. posted elsewhere earlier. . .

Let's all be mindful of how the IWR vote was rushed
in the run up to the 2002, when all dissent was shot down as unpatriotic. As Kerry simply said to the Rolling Stone magazine in 12/03, (paraphrasing) "I voted to grant the president the authority to go to war, I just never imagined that he'd f*ck it up so badly."

The argument lies not in granting the authority, but it's idiotic implementation. . .rush to war, not allowing the inspectors to finish their work, not enough troops, firing all the Iraqi security forces, not enough translators, no education for the troops regarding Islamic culture, the hiring of sadisticly thuggish contractors (aka mercenaries), not employing any Iraqi's when they are among the most educated and skilled populations in the ME, 70% unemployment, no observance of the rule of law or the Geneva Conventions. . .oh bother. . .you all know already. . .I'll shut up.  

[cidliz2004]

159. This makes sense of Kerry's answer

This was posted by another DU'r and it really makes it simple and justifies Kerry's vote:


Jackpine Radical (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-09-04 08:25 PM
Original message
Let me try a simple metaphor for Kerry's War Resolution vote:


We're about to send a cop out into a bad neighborhood. Should we give him a gun?
Yes.

The cop panics and kills a kid with the gun.

Does that mean we shouldn't have armed the cop?
No.
It means we should get a better class of cop.

If Kerry wins, he's going to have to go into some bad neighborhoods, and he'll maybe want a gun. If he now says it was wrong to arm the first cop, his opponents will turn that into an argument for not giving him a gun when his turn comes to go into that neighborhood.

Giving the President war authority is not the same thing as approving his stupid use of the authority.

[Ducks In A Row]

36. Thanks

I didn't fall for it, but I didn't have a way to explain it to friends who have.

[KC21304]

37. I believe there is a third way and I thought Kerry was almost there

but he didn't go far enough. I believe he should have said Bush is asking the wrong question. The question should be, if Kerry were President and had gotten the authorization to go to war, which he says the President should have, he obviously would have let inspections continue and then found no WMDs, would he have then gone to war and I think the answer would be no.

That seems to be what Kerry said in SO many words, which he is prone to do. (And so am I apparently )

He is saying what Bush did after getting the authorization is what Kerry would not have done.

What he can not admit at this point is that he was wrong to give Bush the authorization to go to war. I don't know if I agree with him on this or not but that is where we are.

[flpoljunkie]

65. JK said if you think he would have pulled inspectors out, rushed to war

like Bush did, then don't vote for him, vote for Bush. Bush repeatedly said 'war was his last resort'; Colin Powell assured John Kerry that the diplomacy would be done. Neither of these things were done.

We must condemn Bush for the war in Iraq, not John Kerry, and we must show our contempt for George Bush's bad faith in rushing this nation to war in Iraq with no plan to win the peace, and vote the bastard out of office in November!

Keep your eyes on the prize!

[GreenArrow]

172. let's assume

that Bush agreed to allow the inspections to continue. And let's say, that at the end of six months, no WMD had been found. Bush and team, exemplified by the words of Don Rumsfeld -- "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- would have insisted that the weapons were still there, and that Sadaam was hiding them, and thumbing his nose at the inspectors, and violating the sanctions. Sadaam would still be painted as a threat. War would then have ensued.

Kerry should just admit that Pax Americana Inc. needs the oil and the strategic value of the country once known as Iraq.

[MadHound]

40. So once more, the anti war and progressive far left is forced into line

Expected to do as their told, and given zip, zilch, nada for their support. Yay:eyes:

No, I didn't like Kerry's IWR vote, and highly resent that I'm being forced to choose between two candidates who are going to continue prosecute the war, staying the course as it may be.

I'm hanging with Kerry, but just barely. Supreme Court appointments are my only hope to hang onto, and if Kerry comes out with something stupid on those, I'm gone, I'm Green.

Welcome to our two party/same corporate master system of government. Where your choices are good cop/bad cop, and the game is always rigged.

[snippyMcNippy]

43. Kerry knows his base supports him no matter what.

All he has to do now is lure the undecideds in and not worry at all about us. It didn't used to be like this. The ABB effect has taken control of Kerry's base. No matter how it is spun it is still another nail in the coffin of altruistic elections.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. He knows we have no fucking choice

He knows we hate Bush. Support isn't what is going on here. Extortions the word. They smugly flaunt it with this statement too.

[snippyMcNippy]

62. I'm with you CL

But many don't dare do a criticism dump in the wrong fora. Honesty among candidates is no longer a fad among the electorate. This may be my last active election season if Kerry does not do a 180 in November.

[MadHound]

70. Amen friend, amen

Once again we're getting our ass kicked with this good cop/bad cop game they're playing.

[Walt Starr]

45. It's Rove's way of giving the Democratic Party a Wedgie

And lots of people have fallen for it.

[madfloridian]

50. I have not fallen for anything.

Our nominee voted yes, and said he still would. That is not Rove speaking, that is Kerry speaking.

To keep implying that those of us are truly concerned about the Iraq invasion are clueless and "fall for things" is rather insulting.

This, I am afraid, is a big issue. It gets bigger for me when I am talked down to like I am a fool.

To clarify, we donated generously to Kerry and we will vote for him.

[sangh0]

53. You are not being talked "down to" because you opposed the invasion

You are being talked "down to" because you keep insisting that things that never happened have happened.

[madfloridian]

55. Please post proof of what you just said.

Thanks, I would appreciate it. Please post the things that I said happened that never happened.

[sangh0]

60. You claimed you are being attacked for being anti-war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x607233#607313

[madfloridian]

75. I have been. Many have been.

Many times. Many times. I am not going back and search, because you would still say it wasn't true.

It has changed here a whole lot since 2002. I am now considered fringe lefty because I don't believe in empire and oppose the war.

I understand Skinner's point, and I have reiterated that we have donated and will vote for Kerry....just to be sure that folks understand.

There has been a concerted effort to keep the anti-war voices quiet to keep harmony. I am of mixed feelings on that. It looks pretty, but it ain't true.

[blondeatlast]

110. If you won't buck up with evidence, I can't take you seriously. nt

[madfloridian]

111. Thanks for not taking me seriously.

.

[blondeatlast]

128. Your welcome, anytime!

[GreenArrow]

174. I take you seriously

I see those kind of attacks on here everyday, not just against you.

[madfloridian]

183. Thanks.

It is impossible to search for something like that. I tried a lot of words, but it is hard to find the threads.

[Zomby Woof]

152. I am proudly on the anti-war Left!

And NO ONE has ever criticized me for being anti-war. Ever.

It must have been something else you said to rile 'em. Take it from someone who is good at pissing off people.

[unfrigginreal]

73. Yeah, but Kerry threw salt in the wound the way he answered it.

He could have done it differently and I hope he does going forward.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. Yeah, he was specifically trying to hurt you.

:eyes:

[Cocoa]

52. he has been totally consistent on this

Edwards too. Even during the primaries, when challenged by opponents that played to antiwar sentiment, both of them held firm.

And to his credit, Kerry was more nuanced about it than Edwards and Lieberman were.

[peacetalksforall]

57. I don't believe in people being silenced.

There will be a Rove trick no matter what the circumstances are.

If it's so important to some of you that we anti-killing voters are sickened and won't shut up, why not design an internal message board that is super-secret and a truly underground message board so that you can take what we say and let him know what we think?

I can only say that I will speak less, but fresh material as we had today doesn't fit well when combined with the news that we are at about 945 in deaths and about 12,000 in casualties.
Not to mention those poor Iraqi people. Between the blood and the tears they can start growing crops on the parched ground.

As each day passes, I am more sickened about ours and theirs.

Silence isn't the entire answer. Rove is a gotcha kind of nasty human no matter what a person says or does. He loves death, including character assassinations.

[sangh0]

64. No one is being silenced on DU

Why do posters think hyperbole is going to help make their positions more credible?

[Kahuna]

59. It's amazing how much time people spend on a political website..

and still don't understand politics.

You are one hundred percent right. It was typical chimp divide and conquer tactics. Nothing else.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. You conservative dems have lost the last two elections so I don't

think you are political experts. Unfortunately dems don't believe in replacing their failed advisors with people who have better judgement.

[Kahuna]

86. Whatever! And by the way. I'm not a conservative Dem. I'm a ..

moderate liberal. Let's just get our labels straight. M'kay?

[Classical_Liberal]

94. There are people who claim lieberman is moderate because he is prochoice.

I have a different perspective. Sorry.

[Kahuna]

97. Have whatever perspective you want. But try not to label people..

you know nothing about. That's the best way to proceed in life.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. I know from personal experience with you that you advocate

running to the middle in elections. I disagree with this strategy and credit it with our last two election losses.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

115. Why do you find it necessary to label the other poster

or charecterize the other poster's positions?


Why don't you just advocate for what you believe in, and let the people you are talking to advocate for what they believe in?


If you insist on putting words in people's mouths and responding to that, you're just talking to yourself.

[Classical_Liberal]

117. It is important to know where people are coming from

. I don't believe these are election tactics. The dlc has a real philosophy. I don't see where I have ever not advocated my own position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. Which is achieved by listening to them, not by labeling them

or putting words in their mouths.


I don't see where I have ever not advocated my own position.
YOU: 'You conservative dems' post 67

- you are labeling the other poster. Then you got into an argument about who is more qualified to label him - you or he himself.

'I'm not a conservative Dem. ' post 86

YOU: 'There are people who claim lieberman is moderate because he is prochoice. I have a different perspective. Sorry. ' post 94

'Have whatever perspective you want. But try not to label people you know nothing about. ' post 97

YOU: ' I know from personal experience with you that you advocate running to the middle in elections. I disagree with this strategy and credit it with our last two election losses. ' post 98

So instead of advocating your own position, you are telling the other poster what they advocate. Do you understand now?

[Classical_Liberal]

121. I already know where he comes from by having debated

my purpose in labeling is to inform others.

The label isn't an insult, anyway, and i have no remorse.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. Does that mean you understand that you aren't advocating for a position

but instead are labeling and namecalling other DUers?

Or does it need to be explained again in even more detail?


If you do understand, please answer my original question -- why? Why not just advocate for what you believe in?

[Classical_Liberal]

132. I am a progressive dem

did I just name call myself. This is a power struggle of two different wings of the party in my view. Not just a different position. I see no reason to ignore that and there is no law saying I have to.

Grow up. There are different wings of the party. Live with it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

134. see post 130

post 130


Grow up.

Will you help please? I need your advice in how to act mature. :eyes:

[PassingFair]

169. Say it, CL! Say it!

These guys do not admit to the splintering that is taking place. They will wake up when progressives gain footholds all across the country. I am energized, and so are others. Today the school board, tomorrow the DLC!

[Kahuna]

137. Running to the "middle" is not conservative. You're right about..

me advocating running to the middle. How does that translate to "conservative?" It doesn't, and you know it doesn't.

Running to the middle is how politicians win. Everybody knows that. If our nominee runs too far to the left the MAJORITY OF Dems who are not ultra liberals, who are moderate liberals like myself will stay home. So we lose either way. We're better off going for that big chunk in the middle than that tiny chunk on the far left. I'm putting on my flame retardant suit now. :D

[Classical_Liberal]

145. The middle in the US is conservatie relative to the rest of the world

the right wing is far right fundamentalism. Running to the middle is running right, and you have been going farther and farther right every election. Kerry is farther to the right then Gore,and Gore was to the right of Clinton. I don't see where that gets us but further right. The people then move further right because no alternative positions are offered.

I never believed it was an election strategy to run to the middle. I believe they do it because it is actually their philosophy and they find voting blocks that will vote for things they already believe in, and deliberately disenfranchise the rest, like they presently trying to do to antiwar voters.

You can win that way of coarse, but we can also win by creating progressive voting blocks.

[blondeatlast]

113. IMHO, calling ANYONE on DU a "conservative" is alertable! nt

[Classical_Liberal]

114. I called him a "conservative democrat"

Go ahead in alert then.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. But -- why?

Why not just say what you think about issues? Why the namecalling and making it personally about another DUer?

[Classical_Liberal]

124. I am a progressive democrat

.
you are engaging in phony outrage.

It is important to indentify the poster as being predisposed to that position, because he comes from the wing of the party I am speaking out against.

I believe that this is a power stuggle for the party by different wings of it. My goal is displacement of the wing that now controls it, and the poster reflect this wing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

130. I don't care how you label yourself, as long as you don't label others.

you are engaging in phony outrage

Really? What other emotions am I feeling and how genuine are they?

lol

[Classical_Liberal]

140. Bush is a republican, so is Carl Rove

Nader is a green.

Greg Palast is a bald man!

and this outrage over such identification is baloney.

[Kahuna]

141. Well not really. You label me a conservative. Then explain it's because

I advocate running to the "middle." Last I looked, the "middle" isn't conservative. Also, since you know so much about me, other than how I think campaigns should be run, what issues would you say qualify me as "conservative?"

[Classical_Liberal]

144. "Conservative Democrat" sure as hell doesn't imply Jerry Falwell.

. The middle relative to the rest of the world is conservative, and is getting more so, because the Dems go farther right every year to get them, then they go farther right because the dems do, then the dems go further right.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. I don't have any problem with those -- that is you expressing your

opinion about a public figure.


I really find it hard to believe that you actually don't already understand the distinction, but, I will demonstrate it to you:


If I were to say that Silvio Berlusconi is a fascist, that's just my opinion about a public figure. There would be no reason for anyone at DU to object to that, although they certainly could disagree.

But if I were to say you are a fascist, and I know that because I've read enough of your posts to know, that would be something that I think is objectionable. To be more conducive to conversation, as well as more open to understanding the viewpoint of the other person, it would be better to just take issue with the ideas expressed in those posts.


Get it?

[Classical_Liberal]

148. No

calling someone a conservative democrat is not the same as calling someone a fascist which is an insult, but in Berlusconi's case is kind of true.

Furthermore, I have a right to my opinion, as do you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. I don't believe you don't understand what an analogy is.

Your protestations of ignorance are not credible.

calling someone a conservative democrat is not the same as calling someone a fascist

I don't believe that you actually think I said or implied that: 'calling someone a conservative democrat is the same as calling someone a fascist'

And I don't believe that you didn't understand that my point is about namecalling of public figures versus namecalling of DUers.

I just don't think you are being honest about this. Just my opinion.

[blondeatlast]

125. Naw, I still think there's a sense of humor there somewhere. nt

[sangh0]

189. Mondale is a conservative Dem?

Who knew?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

95. I don't have to understand politics to know that Iraq was very wrong.

This is way way way more than "chimp divide and conquer tactics". It is about our country for the first time invading another country.

Do not talk down to me. I am not stupid nor am I naive.

Oh, I forgot....we are voting for Kerry.

[Kahuna]

139. We all know it's wrong. But what's the use of beating a dead horse?

It's done. We can't put the Genie back in the bottle. Either we're with Kerry or Bush. That's what it boils down to. I'll stick with Kerry, thank you.

[klook]

61. "Knowing what you know now"

is too easy, and virtually inconsequential. As Fla. Marlins manager Jack McKeon told a room full of sportswriters, "Some decisions are made--some work out, some don't work out. We have one guess. You get two."

The real question here should be: Who's more likely to launch another pre-emptive war in the future? Bush or Kerry?

Kerry will inherit the Iraq mess and will have to deal with it. I'm confident he'll do a much better job than LBJ and Nixon did with Vietnam, and will have us out of Iraq as quickly as is feasible.

If Bush is elected, we can be guaranteed of more war, more deadly paper tigers, and more unaddressed threats. I want a commander-in-chief who will actually work to make the U.S. more secure. Therefore, I'm voting for Kerry.

Thanks, Skinner, for the dose of common sense.

[Old and In the Way]

68. I think you read this correctly Skinner.

It's pretty obvious to me that if Kerry was President, we'd never have invaded Iraq to begin with. This is Bush's folly. No one forced him to invade and occupy Iraq. He did it for his own narrow political/economic agenda. It will be Kerry's problem in 2005, but it is totally assinine for people to say that Kerry wanted this war to occur.

Makes you wonder what the real motive is of some of our "anti-war" posters here.

[Padraig18]

69. I'm as anti-war as anyone here, BUT...

... Skinner is absolutely right--- this is a setup. I marched against the war and was damned near arrested in Chicago for my efforts, but even I can see this for what it is.

Am I happy with Kerry's vote? No. Am I going to let that sleazy fuck KKKarl Rove use this as a wedge issue to keep me from supporting Kerry? No, again--- I'm not that naive.

[mzmolly]

100. I don't get why ANYONE is surprised. Kerry has said all along he didn't

regret giving * the authority to "protect America" but he felt Bush misused his authority.

Where have you people been?! This is not NEWS. It's the same position Kerry has had all along.

Do I wish Kerry hadn't voted for the war? YES.
Do I wish Gore was in office now instead of Bush YES.
Do I hope Kerry wins the next election so we don't have 4 more wars? YES

[GreenArrow]

176. "It's the same position Kerry has had all along"

And people have been criticizing Kerry all along--ever since he cast his vote. And Karl fucking Rove had nothing to do with it.

[Texas_Dem]

72. Thank you for the rational voice

Skinner. I don't post here, mainly lurk, but thought your post was right on. Karl is working overtime these days and folks need to be ready cause more of the crap is coming.

My Two Cents

[David Zephyr]

74. Preach It, Skinner.

Kerry handled the "gay intiative" in Missouri much the same way. This 35 year gay activist has no problem with Kerry refusing to play into Rove's traps.

Your thread is spot on.

"NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM ONE WEEK AGO. Kerry's position on the war is the same. The only difference is that Rove came up with a way to remind you that you didn't like Kerry's war vote, so now we've got a bunch of people saying that they're not going to vote for him.

"Don't fall for it! Those sleazy fuckers on the other side will try anything to divide us. They have no shame, and they'll do anything to win. Be strong! Don't let them divide us! Don't fall for it!"

:thumbsup:

[peacetalksforall]

76. You Rovian theorists are being held hostage.

If Kerry gets the right advice and the right advisors he can work his way around Rove and throw it back.

I don't know who you are afraid of...

I heard...

Rove

I heard

Undecideds

I heard

Swing voters

Which swing voters - the war enthusiasts or the war haters?

Because I'm ABB and because I would never walk away from voting, I'm being held hostage if your only reason for asking for cooperation or understanding of Kerry through 'non-dissension' is because of Rove.

Kerry needs better advisors about the war issue. Some of the suggestions made above in reply to Rove are excellent. He's not working very hard at walking the tightrope. Give in to Rove? No way.

Present some other logic about non-dissension and then present the best suggestions here to his experts.

He also needs to deflect and provide the world with a statement if he feels it that we are not going to take over any more countries. (And my personl one - that he will name a Secretary of Peace.)

Kerry needs to know what all of his ABB voters think and NEVER take advantage of us. If he now really believes in war, he should let us know - which he may be doing because he was not very original or creative today in his responses.

Now is just as good as later - unless, as I said, someone can make the argument that doesn't include Rove in their request that we don't feed 'something or other'.

[liveoaktx]

77. Video Clip from Lou Dobbs that proves this point

Kerry Iraq

Notice that he supporting Bush's AUTHORITY as president, but re-iterates that he would have handled this Iraq situation very differently. (

[Classical_Liberal]

80. But handling it differently is probably just a coded way of saying

Bush botched the war by not invading with allies. It really isn't against the Iraq war at all. I think the dem elites really support the war and just think Bush botched it. That is the real truth of the matter. It maybe we will have more leverage on Kerry, but his advisors are pretty much cut from the same neocon mold, as Bush's advisors.

[unfrigginreal]

84. Not necessarily...

I doubt that Iraq would have even been on the radar screen had Kerry been in office. We had them contained and nothing new surfaced to warrant taking action against them. I believe that were Kerry in office, North Korea would have been receiving the bulk of our attention.

[liveoaktx]

89. I agree with that. From the start, according to The Price of Loyalty

Bush administration was looking for an excuse to go after Iraq. Even ONE DAY after 911, Rummy was looking for a way to tie them together, AND Richard Clarke said the same thing re: getting pulled into a side room with Bush telling him to find a connection. So, one way or another, Bush administration was GOING TO GO, but had planned this pre:911. 911 merely gave them a good excuse to prey upon people's fears.

Who can say if Kerry's priorities would have been the same? Even if they had been, Kerry gave support to Bush for War of Last Resort, and upon certain pre-conditions (detailed in Worse Than Watergate).

Even Bush's father got UN support for war, unlike Bushie Jr who rushed in after thumbing his nose at the world community.

[Snoggera]

88. Do you have any information that would shed some light on this statement?

"his advisors are pretty much cut from the same neocon mold, as Bush's advisors."

I don't see it at all, and believe me, I have my eyes wide open!

[Classical_Liberal]

91. Will Marshall is Kerry foriegn policy speech advisor

Works for the PNAC and PPI thinktank. Rand Beers, Kerry's advisor is a republican.


It isn't just iraq either. It is Cuba and Venezuala, the Israelis settlements, the wall, everything is the same.

If you want details read this.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0806-05.htm

[Snoggera]

93. I'll be damned n/t

[peacetalksforall]

101. If this is true about PNAC PPI and Marshall - I may not vote, Does

anyone have a relative in Europe, Canada, or Mexico or Guatemala that I can borrow? Having Marshall on board means Kerry means it. What could change a soul that much in 30 years? That explains Cuba, Venezuela, the wall - so how do those people explain their position that we just have to get through the election. This is terrible news - I didn't know this = about Marshall.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. Guilt by association?

You won't vote because... what is the reason again?

[Classical_Liberal]

112. Well Kerry has promised to get along with Europe better

The Europeans have recently indicated that they will condition any help they give Kerry in Iraq, on real progress in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and true democracy in Iraq. That is my only hope. I am voting for the guy, but not with blinders on. The antiwar movement should not see Kerry as a victory and demobilize. He get's you better relations with the EU, and it shows the neocons we can remove their guys. That's what you have. The other reason to vote for him is the courts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. Your post is probably just a coded way of saying

some words that I feel like putting in your mouth.

:eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

118. No, I am reading between the lines

and using empirical evidence. I don't take the words of politicians seriously. I look at actions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. Yes, I am reading between the lines

of your post and using empirical evidence. I don't take the words of DU posters at face value.

So using the same logic you are using, whatever you say means whatever I want to say it means.

[Classical_Liberal]

126. this is just baloney flaming

. spare me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

131. So when I use the exact same tactic and logic as you - it's 'baloney'?

I'll go along with that.

[Classical_Liberal]

138. You're tactic is to change the subject

all I did was notice a trend in the person views, and give it a completely uninsulting label.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

142. No, I am consistently pointing out that you are putting words in people's

mouths. You are putting words in Kerry's mouth, and in the other posters' mouths. Following up through the replies will show this has been my subject. The only other subject I have discussed, in another subthread, was 'labeling and namecalling.

[Classical_Liberal]

147. I don't take politicians or many of the people on the board at

their word. That is an established fact, I don't dispute. I am distrustful of them and have cause.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. This is why I no longer argue about the IWR.

It's easier to let Skinner be the voice of reason.

[Snoggera]

79. I was, and remain strongly against this war, and most

of the people whose posts I have read are also against it. It has become depressing to see so many threads where it is obvious that rather than take the fight to the opponent, we are again in the defensive mode. It is nothing new, but seems to be increasing.

The RW is going to continue to make baseless accusations and spread rumors in order to create a split in the party. They are experts at it. I can just imagine how many thousands of threads would have been posted about Al Gore inventing the internet. Most would probably state the correct information/response to this nonsense, but some would undoubtedly start up a thousand threads stating their indignation and plan to vote for nader because they couldn't trust Gore.

It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. To gain a truthful understanding of what the man said, read all of his words, and place them in the context of WHO is saying them. Don't place the words in the context that the Rovians want you to, because that context is false.

I will vote for Kerry if I have to crawl all the way to the precinct, because I know there is a difference between him and the evil one. I hope to see more threads regarding how fucked up * is. If I want "I don't wanna vote for Kerry" threads, I'll go to Free Republic.

thanks.

[Classical_Liberal]

81. I don't believe it is just the right wing of the republicans

I seriously think the dlc wants the antiwar people to leave the party. They have nothing to offer us which is true enough. The trouble is this isn't a multiparty system, so we can't go anywhere. Thus they fight for something even more yucky, which is the intentional disenfrachisement. This is about a struggle for control of the parties future, and the countries of that I have no doubt.

[Snoggera]

82. I think when Dean went down in flames

that signaled the battle was already over. I disagree that they want anti-war people to leave the party, because that would mean someone like nader would garner 6% or more of the vote. I think they want to appeal to Mr. and Mrs. Average American first, and those that tend to live on the fringes second. That's just the way it is, and it was definitely a winning strategy for Clinton (and he turned out to be pretty good).

I'll just have to wait and see.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. They are prowar and want to ditch antiwar factions.

It isn't a poltical calculation. The dlc doesn't triangulate to win. They take the positions they take because it is what they believe. They use nader in a stupid way. In a way that would actually create more disenfrachisement. They ignore his issues and just attack his voters. Infact he is another tool of disenfrachisement. Also the majority of Americans are against the war, so it isn't appeal to average Americans. The dlc are philosophically in favor of the war and that is all there is too it. They seek voters that will support positions they already hold, and disenfranchise those in the party who might oppose that position.

[farmbo]

99. Bingo...Rove wanted to run the canned Dean attacks against Kerry...

"If Kerry had his way, Saddam and Uday would still be in power in Iraq...".

Then, run the campaign against Saddam and keep Kerry (and his biography) out of it.

[Cha]

116. You should have heard Rep Bob Menendez from New Jersey..

on c-span this morning when a freep from Mass. was saying that Bob was disingenous for saying Kerry would have done things differently when Kerry just said he agreed with bush(or some such dribble)..anyway..Bob said ..I'm sorry, but it is you who are being disingenous when you didn' listen to all of Kerry's answer..he gave the pres(sic) authorization but expected all of those prerequisites to be followed..and he went on and on and made a very strong case for Kerry.

The whole show with Menendez was great if anybody can catch in on webcam. He made the case Against porter goss, too.

[peacetalksforall]

123. My last post on this thread...

Today I learned more than I wanted to know about Kerry and his roundabout links to PNAC.

Someone please lift me up.

[Classical_Liberal]

136. Hugo Chavez will kick neoliberal butt in the referendum in Venezuala

There is a 50/50 chance the EU has grown a spine and will try to take a leadership position in the middle east vacuum, and Kerry isn't a moron like Bush.

[agincourt]

133. I hated his IWR vote,too

But one must remember, a Bush victory almost guarantees a war with Iran. And that war won't be limited to the air.

[Cha]

150. I also hated his IWR vote but the differences I have

with Kerry and Edwards are miniscule compared to the difference I have with * and his craven thugs.

I didn't want bush in 2000 when I barely knew him..as sure as hell don't want him in 2004 when I've been doing nothing but fighting his policies for 4 freakin' long years.

[GreenArrow]

178. and if we stay in Iraq

no matter who is pres, the chances of a war with Iran increase.

[Zomby Woof]

149. A million THANK YOUS

That is EXACTLY RIGHT. He MUST deflect the flip-flop BS at all costs. I shouldn't be surprised how many DUers do not know basic strategy for traps like this.

[Maddy McCall]

166. Only the ivory soapers don't get it.

;-)

[madfloridian]

Skinner, thanks for trying by posting this.

I think from reading the posts that the same problem still remains. I don't know how to get around it. I am restating that we will vote for Kerry and have donated. I do that a lot.

I think the basic problem is that if any of us think Kerry should share the blame on going to war, that is what brings the wrath.

I don't see a way around it. He and any of the congress who voted for it are equally responsible. It does not mean he is not a good man, it means he voted to allow this man named Bush to have the authority to do it.

The anger about the war and its consequences is being misdirected toward those of us who feel uneasy about his stance. There should not be anger, there should be understanding. We care deeply about our country. I taught many years, and I always taught what a great country we were.

The trouble is that I don't feel so strongly about that anymore. I don't feel very proud right now. I feel worse when told like some have here that Kerry should not be criticized. It is not being divisive to question. That is what the problem is here. Some even brought other candidates in, and that is not the issue either.

My family is so divided it breaks my heart. Our country is divided. Yet I can see reading the responses that many think it is wrong to question the vote that got us in this mess.

Thanks for trying, and I see the points you are making in your post. Kerry will make a much better president than Bush, that is indisputable. I just feel he has the same goals of continuing to remap the middle east, which is why we were in Iraq to begin with.
That should be cause for concern for us all.

We will vote for Kerry, and we have donated to him.

[wicket]

151. Well said!

Thank-you :)

[Generator]

154. Double bless you Skinner

And how about for once, just once, dammit, a little bit of loyalty to Kerry!??? Without a touch of faith, all there is is cynicism and despair. It's so easy-even though I may have my days I don't believe in anything good being possible.

I'm trusting in Kerry. Trusting him to be smart enough to get elected and smart enough to not disgrace our country.

Once he's President, I have no problemo if we tear apart everything he does. I certainly was hard on Clinton, and I expect to be hard on Kerry.

But please please don't let these Republican fascist lite idiots that are the creepiest things I've seen in my 41 years take away our country, okay? Have a wee bit of faith, otherwise we are lost.

[Seabiscuit]

161. "He fudged it", alright.

Kerry didn't "do what he had to do", however. I supported Howard Dean from early 2003 because of Kerry's vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution *after arguing strenuously against it*.

Kerry "fudged it". And he's been "fudging" it ever since. He's fallen right into Rove's lap.

He should have admitted the truth early on, and he is pissing all of us off by now because he's still playing the DLC middle of the road spinles beltway Dem game about Iraq - and as we've witnessed over the years, as the right shifts further and further to the right, so does the middle ground the DLC keeps trying to appeal to. By now Kerry's sounding like a right-winger on Iraq.

The damned fool just can't be honest enough to do the *right* thing, and it may kill his campaign in the end. He MUST admit the truth and go after Bush with all guns blazing. He should charge Bush with exaggering and falsifying and lying about the intelligence about Iraq's supposed "huge stockpile of WMDs", his supposed ties to Al Queda, Saddam's supposed intent to attack us here at home, and Saddam's supposed "imminent threat" to our security. Then he should admit that he was honestly *deceived* by the false intelligence the Bush administration presented to Kerry and others on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then he should admit that if he knew then what he knew now he would have voted against the Iraq War Resolution as premature. He should declare that Bush should have not only allowed the U.N. inspectors to complete their mission, he never should have been given, and *NO* president should ever be given permission by the Congress to go to war on a simple resolution only (haven't we *yet* learned our lesson from the phony evidence supporting the Tonkin Gulf Resolution Lyndon Johnson rammed through Congress allowing him to sink this country into the Vietnam morass???) but *ONLY* with a formal Constitutional Declaration of War by Congress. Congress and Kerry are just as much to blame as Bush is for getting us into this Iraq quagmire, and allowing Bin Laden and Al Queda and the Taliban to escape for the most part and continue to grow as a very real imminent threat to our security.

If Kerry wasn't the only alternative to Bush at this point, I'd vote against him.

Too bad John Dean didn't have John Edwards' personality and speaking skills. He'd be our nominee today instead of Kerry, and he'd be forcefully slamming BushCo for their lies and hypocrisy about Iraq and everything else.

Kerry has morphed back into the caricature Dean portrayed him and people like him in Congress from the beginning: a "a spineless, useless, beltway Democrat" who is a threat to the true base of the Democratic Party.

Sorry, Skinner, but I'm not falling for Bush's spin or Rove's spin at all - that's not the problem with most of us - we're disgusted at Kerry's lack of spine and integrity on this issue. He's just playing the same-old, same-old tried-and-false DLC game of playing politics with the issue and trying to appeal to both sides and the middle all at once, and it makes him appear virtually indistinguishable to most voters from Bush.

We need a clear alternative.

Since we don't have one on the Iraq issue, then if Kerry somehow wins despite his personal train-wreck on the Iraq issue, we're all going to have to take to the streets again to protest Kerry's policies until he does the right thing in Iraq and gets us the hell out and gets the U.N. in, then goes after Al Queda full force.

[Hutzpa]

171. Sometimes it takes people with level head to explain...

in a clear and precise manner what is at stake. There are too many "jump on the band-wagon type" who will jump at the click of a finger, reminds me of watching a headless chicken run its last run.

So I say unto you well said!

Bravo!!


:thumbsup:

[ScreamingMeemie]

173. I guess common sense and doing the right thing gets in the way of

politics for me Skinner. I still would have appreciated an "I was wrong". As a Democrat and a mom, I want this. Where is the party that will keep my son, and my daughter safe from death for the greed of others. I am behind Kerry/Edwards 100%, but I will always be saddened that they approved the handover of hundreds of our children in the name of oil. I knew better, and they should have as well.

There's a lot to be said for admitting one's mistakes.

[LisaL]

181. war

This war is a disaster from start to finish-well, there is no end in sight.
But Bush is the one started it, and would have started it, regardless of how Kerry voted on it.
Let's just put blame where it belongs.

[TexasSissy]

184. I disagree. He should've avoided the question as hypothetical.

Eventually he could've answered, if the press was bad. And in that case, he should've said, taking into consideration the fact that we now know that Iraq had no WMD, and the resolution was to use force against Iraq, which had the purpose of eliminating an imminent threat from WMD, he would not be able to vote yes.

[cidliz2004]

185. Kerry's Statement on his vote going to Iraq 12/2003

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.”

[MattNC]

186. thanks for that n/t

[greenohio]

190. I really appreciate this thread

I have been following these boards for a long time. I disagreed with Kerry's moderation on many issues (especially his vote against Kyoto). Rove trick or no, Kerry's stance against the war was a huge deciding factor and why he received many votes (including mine) to make it out of the primaries, otherwise Dean would be the guy. When he moderated his stance on the war I lost that factor. Yes, he had to choose who to piss off. Its going to take some time to digest this, but I really appreciate a thread that doesn't bash the shaken.