How badly did Kerry hurt

[warrior1]

himself by saying "Yes" he would knowing what he knows now, still go to war?

I got into a heated argument with my brother, he's panicking and I think it's too early to place much thought into this. We've got a long way to go till November.

He's said the talking heads gave this week to bush because of it. This makes three weeks in a row, he said.

I told him the polls say different, anyway what do you think?

[xray s]

1. The talking heads are in Bush's corner

I would ignore their pontifications.

[Massacure]

2. The polls don't say different, Kerry has been gaining ground lately.

Zogby has Kerry ahead 50-43 now.

Kerry voted to give Bush a whole host of options. The military strike was in there as a threat against Saddam. Bush obviously didn't do much threatening though.

[Jackpine Radical]

64. That's what I've been trying to tell people around here for several days

now.

Kerry wanted inspections resumed, and that coudn't have happened unless Bush also had the power to threaten war for failure to comply. It was NOT a given that Bush would actually go to war if given the authority. Power to inspect and power to go to war came in one inseparable package.

[CaTeacher]

3. I think it discourage the

anti-war Democrats. They will still support him--but they are already less energized.

For swing voters--I don't know how they will take this?

It will take a little while to know if it will impact the polls.

[radiclib]

4. Look at it this way.

For every progressive vote he lost, he probably pried a knuckle-dragger away from Bush. "HELL, yeah, we don't need NO stinkin' reason..."

[sandnsea]

5. He DID NOT say that

Why do you repeat what the lying media says? Why do you not hold Bush accountable for what he said in October 2002, that the vote was NOT a vote for war, but America speaking with one voice to hold Saddam accountable to meed the requirements of the UN disarmament resolutions. That is what Kerry voted for and he said he would vote to make Saddam meet those requirements, even if he knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Because it isn't a one shot deal, it's a long term process. What is so hard to understand about that.

[MidwestTransplant]

8. READ SANDNSEA's WORDS.....

[wurzel]

15. I think he did say that. That is why it is so bad.

In any case he had better make it clear what he actually meant. I believe Bush's challenge was for Kerry to say whether, knowing what he knows now, he would be would be in Iraq today. And as far as I can understand the answer was "yes"! Kerry has never said the invasion was a mistake. Even knowing what we know now! Only that he would have done it differently.

[sandnsea]

30. He has

Nobody cares, but he has. He has said so many times that he would never have gone to war in March. That he would have let the inspections process and diplomacy continue. He said it in March. It's impossible to say whether or not he would have overthrown Saddam, it all would have depended on Saddam's continued cooperation with inspections. Long term, permanent inspections. Saddam wanted a one shot inspection and sanctions lifted. That wasn't going to happen and shouldn't have happened. It's not a simple black and white situation. Bush paints everything that way. Environment or jobs. War or appeasement. I don't know why the left helps him do it.

"I read somewhere that the Bush folks were trying to say that we changed positions, this that," Kerry said. "I've been consistent all along and I thought that the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein, but I thought we should do it right."

"I thought we ought to reach out to other countries, we ought to build an international coalition, we ought to exhaust the remedies available to us."
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campai...

[DrFunkenstein]

66. Thank you, Sandnsea, you are a treasure

Jesus, if we can't even get the lies straight at DU...

[MikeG]

6. Kerry has to keep telling himself "It's Stupid, Stupid"

[kentuck]

7. I think Kerry still needs to clarify that statement...

Because, since he plans on winning the presidency in November, he would not want to vote to lessen his own authority as Commander in Chief. However, when he said that he would vote again to give the president authority, he should have made an exception with George W Bush. He should have known how it would have been spinned. It was a mistake on his part and he should admit it.

[wurzel]

11. I don't think it was "spinned". He may havesaid it.

From what I understand he actully said he would be in Iraq today. Not merely that he would have given "authority". The trouble is things get so garbled I am not even certain of this. In any case Kerry sure better clarify exactly what he did say.

[kentuck]

17. He would not have pre-emptively invaded Iraq...

He would have given the inspectors more time. He would have worked to build up a coalition with our Allies. He would only have gone into Iraq as a last resort.

But, I'm not sure that I would want Kerry to have the same authority that he gave to Bush, or any president, for that matter. I have a problem with giving any president "authority" to go to war on his own...I agree with Robert C Byrd.

(edit for one more paragraph)

However, we know that if he were to say he was wrong, they would say this was another example of his flip-flopping and would use it against him even more. Bush cannot say Kerry was wrong to give him authority lest he admit he was wrong himself. Kerry had to make a tough decision when he was confronted with the question. I personally believe it was a political response to try to escape a trap set by Bush and Rove.

[wurzel]

19. That was not what he was asked.

Bush asked him if he would be in Iraq today "Yes" or "no". And I think he said "yes".

[kentuck]

21. He said yes, he would vote to give the president authority...

and then explained what he would have done differently.

[wurzel]

25. Let me ask the question. Would Kerry be in Iraq today. Yes or No!

Knowing what he knows today would Kerry be in Iraq, even if he would do it "differently"?

[kentuck]

34. No. Probably not.

If he had gone in, it would have been because Saddam had kicked out all the inspectors and our allies. And he would have went inunder entirely different circumstances than Bush, if at all. I doubt that we would be in Iraq today, seriusly.

(edited to add:)

But he would still have wanted the "authority" to keep the pressue on Saddam, which is what Kerry voted to give Bush..

[wurzel]

37. "Probably not" doesn't cut it! Are we right to be there or not?

Please give me Kerry's answer.

[kentuck]

If Saddam had attacked our troops?

You don't know what would have happened and I don't know what might have happened. However, with the same information that Bush had, Kerry would not have invaded Iraq, I am certain.

[tblue37]

43. There is a good article

on Slate.com that explains Kerry's position very clearly. (No, he would not have invaded Iraq.)

[Old and In the Way]

44. Exactly, kentuck.

Bush asked a question that demanded a binary response "yes/no". Either answer was OK for Bush because he'd have a nice little sound byte to club Kerry with.

The actual answer is not a simple yes/no.

I find it unbelievable that Bush can make political hay out of a disaster that he alone is responsible for.

[buycitgo]

51. he CAN'T!! not without the aid and comfort of the media hoes, that is

they WON"T let go of this, or give a reliable accounting, even, of what was actually said, with a few exceptions, who are being drowned out by the right wing noise machine

it's that simple: Kerry can't get his message out, even when it's OUT there

they IGNORE it, or TWIST it, EXACTLY as they did to Gore

see Katherine Seelye and Ceci Connolly for prime examples on Gore

Adam Nagourney and Jody Wilogren for smears on Kerry

[wurzel]

9. A hell of a lot.

If he is saying he would have invaded Iraq KNOWING that there were NO MWDs. KNOWING there was NO connection to 911. KNOWING that there were NO nuclear programs. KNOWING that Iraq posed NO threat to the US. I can't see what he has to argue about. He is NO better than Bush. It is one thing for him to say he would still have voted for "presidential authority". It is another to say he would have invaded a sovereign country for no better reasons than Bush gave. It is a disaster.

[dennis4868]

10. It is a disaster

Agree!

How can the man who came back from vietnam and went before congress and said, "how do you ask the last man to die for a mistake," say that he would have given Bush authority to go to war for a mistake?

[Old and In the Way]

45. Did you KNOW on 10/03 for certainty that there were no WMD in Iraq?

Not pretty sure, but 100% sure? If Kerry had voted no, Bush would have invaded anyway. If there had been WMD, how would the Republicans/media be playing that to the electorate? It was a vote designed by Karl Rove to have precisely the effect it is having within the Democratic Party.

[BrendaStarr]

12. Polls always lag reality

That's what I've seen.

Get out to the mixed boards and defend Kerry or point out Bush's problems, inconcistencies etc.

Do something to help.

[Tarheelhombre]

13. The polls show it HAS NOT hurt Kerry at all

It might disappoint the anti-war liberals and the pundits, but the masses of American people have not responded negatively.

[BillZBubb]

14. On a scale from 1 to 10 with ten being total disaster:

5. The sad thing is that Kerry had plenty of time to formulate a brief, intelligent answer but came up with a poor one instead.

It's not a reason to panic, but it shows Kerry's team needs to do a much better job on issues like this.

I think Bush* won this week too, but not because of this. It's because the media is talking about the issues Bush*/Rove wants them to talk about. Kerry is getting lost.

[wurzel]

18. If they haven't got this straight yet, when are they going to?

Bush asked a legitimate, straight question. One that I would ask. The reply was a disaster. There is no excuse for this level of incompetence. It is bound to be asked in the debates.

[BillZBubb]

26. "bound to be asked in the debates."

I agree with this and I share your concern. They had better have a short, snappy sound byte type answer ready. If they don't, it's going to hurt them a lot more afterward than it does now. The Repugs aren't going to drop this, they smell blood.

[wurzel]

28. They are right to. It is a legitimate issue. Not like "swift boat " trash

[mfritz]

16. Tell Bro to stop watching Chris Matthews

That's where the "Bush won three weeks in a row" BS came from. I saw it this afternoon. His panel of idiots don't know what they're talking about.

Kerry's position is really simple, and it hasn't changed:

Giving the president the AUTHORITY to go to war was the right decision, then Bush screwed it up by rushing to war without giving the inspectors a chance to finish, and without building a real coalition.

I was against it from the start, and a lot of liberals get furious when he says this. But he's not going to reverse himself. He's counting on us anti-war lefties to stick with him while he appeals to the middle. Don't let him down!

Anyone that tells you Kerry said he'd go to WAR like Bush, or has the same position on Iraq is either misinformed or a liar.

[wurzel]

20. I wish what you say is true. It isn't.

Bush asked Kerry to answer "Yes or "No" if he would be in Iraq today . Kerry answered "Yes". Now he may have misunderstood the question. If so he should say so now.

[buycitgo]

24. PROVE It!

LINK the quotes from both

I don't believe you, sorry. others have discussed how that's not true

if it IS true, in THOSE words, exactly, I'll give you my brand new, wireless laptop, with a two year warranty

[wurzel]

27. Let me ask you! Would Kerry be in Iraq today? Yes or No?

My impression is he is saying he would. Has he ever said he wouldn't? I'm on his side and even I am confused.

[buycitgo]

29. your impression is EXACTLY what the pugs WANT you

and other gullibles to form!

IMPRESSIONS built on utter FALSEHOODS!

don't you GET it?

haven't you read the MYRIAD refutations of this huge LIE?

I heard so many on a radio talk show today that I'm STILL furious

sorry, but I can't believe you're saying an impression is the best you can do to back up that claim you made

try again

EDIT: NO! of course not. NO sane person would be

do you have ANY idea what the PNACers' influence on all this was?

the same criminals from the first Bush admin have been planning this since before CLINTON

if you don't know about that, look up JINSA/wolfowitz/paper/cheney, or something like that

[buycitgo]

32. and if you STILL don't get it, read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=623199&mesg_id=623199

jesus

[wurzel]

35. True. But not what we are talking about. So I will ask you too!

Would Kerry be in Iraq today knowing what he knows today? "Yes or "No". When has he said so?

[buycitgo]

38. this isn't the argument clinic, pal

your question has been answered hundreds of times here

LAST TIME: he's NEVER said he'd invade Iraq....PROVE he said that

if he did, as I said, my computer is yours

you should be up for that


why don't you put up or............

last time for you, bud

[wurzel]

40. He has never said he wouldn't Is that too nuanced?

n/t

[Old and In the Way]

47. Gee, that opens a whole universe of possiblities, doesn't it?

I guess you could make the case that Kerry willl go nuclear on North Korea.....he hasn't said he wouldn't.

[Old and In the Way]

46. Can you point to a single statement from Kerry that suggests he

was pro-invasion prior to the IWR vote? I have seen absolutely nothing that shows Kerry's desire to start a war in Iraq. He even voted against the 1st Iraq War.

[buycitgo]

50. you're wasting your time now. isn't it obvious?

that last bit went a lot farther down the road of proof

know what EC means?

ganight

[wurzel]

54. Why is this simple question being avoided here?

Imagine Kerry being asked in the Presidential debate.

Sen. Kerry. Even as we now know that Saddam had no WMDs, was not connected to 911, and had no Nuclear capability. Do you agree that invading Iraq and removing the dictator Saddam, and giving the Iraqis a chance for democracy has made America safer. And is worth the cost? "Yes" or "No". How would he answer?

[Old and In the Way]

55. I think you just stated it's not so simple.

Do you agree that invading Iraq and removing the dictator Saddam, and giving the Iraqis a chance for democracy has made America safer.

There is no "simple" answer....as much as you'd like to make it so.

[wurzel]

56. Bush has a simple answer doesn't he? One everyone understands.

Even if you don't agree with him.

[KurtNYC]

57. Kerry doesn't have to jump just because Bush says jump

Sorry to disappoint you but this is a loaded hypothetical question. It does not deserve an answer. Get the Cheney over it!

[wurzel]

61. You can't see that this is how the question will be asked in the debate?

There is nothing "hypothetical" about it. Knowing what we know today about MWDs etc do you (Sen. Kerry) agree that with Saddam gone and the possibility of Iraq having a more democratic system America is now safer? Bush has answer; "YES"! Does Kerry have an answer?

The way I would answer this is "NO". America would have been far safer had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, and leaving Saddam boxed in the way he was. Knowing what I know today I would not have given Bush authority for war in Iraq. However, at the time, I believed the Administration about the threat that Saddam posed. My mistake was not my vote. My mistake was believing the word of a president who misled the country in a reckless way.

How's that?

Instead Kerry just keeps on insisting he "would have done the same as Bush, but at a lesser cost". Which implies he agrees with the war in Iraq.

[buycitgo]

22. How badly do the TALKING HEADS hurt Kerry, by

CONSTANTLY rehashing pug talking points, putting Kerry in the position of having to DEFEND a horrendous WAR that Bush STARTED!

you might ask your brother what we could do with the TWO HUNDRED BILLION bucks we've wasted over there, so far, including billions that are unaccounted for, due to Halliburton's, and others' poor 'accounting' practices

start there

much much more

edit: thought this was in answer to the thread creator

[wurzel]

31. It is called politics and it is legitimate.

If Kerry can't answer whether or not he would have invaded Iraq knowing what we know today he has a problem. And he should have a problem.

[buycitgo]

33. who are you for, again?

jesus

again

[wurzel]

39. Legitimate questions are legitimate. I have yet to get an answer!

[kentuck]

41. I answered clearly above.

:)

[buycitgo]

42. forget this critter

he reFUSED to cite where Kerry said what he SAID Kerry said

he's just yanking chains now

I'm off it

EDIT: in case you missed it, in post 20, it said THIS....

" Bush asked Kerry to answer "Yes or "No" if he would be in Iraq today . Kerry answered "Yes". Now he may have misunderstood the question. If so he should say so now"

I asked him to cite his proof of that

read succeeding posts, if you want excedrin number seven

[oasis]

59. You have your answer. Whether you accept it or not may have to do with

your level of understanding.

[buycitgo]

36. you MISS the point utterly and completely!

check the thread I linked

are you doing this on purpose?

in the words of big fat bug eyed Barb Bush

I'm through with you

you either are purposely remaining ignorant of a very easily understood distinction, or you have other motives

either way, it's a time waster

[SidDithers]

23. OMG, can someone write a pinned post about this...

so we don't get asked about this again, as soon as the previous question drops off the front page?

Sid

[Old and In the Way]

48. I'm really sick of it too.

[greenohio]

49. Not at all

Those offended are his base who are going to vote for him regardless of what he says now because we can't stand Bush. He is reaching out to swing voters, who apparently like the war.

[depakid]

52. The talking heads give almost give every week to Bush!

After the Kerry rally drew over 50,000- by far the largest number of people ever to attend a political event in the state's history, the two "analysts I saw on local news both claimed that Bush's protest riddled invite only affair at a high school gym was clearly superior. One said- and I quote "overall, it was a better day for George Bush," which he follwed up by noting how "happy and upbeat the pRresident looked."

So, I say don't listen to a word you hear from the "talking heads" because they have proven that they will say anything and cover-up anything to make Bush look good. No matter how outrageous.

[notbush]

53. Fuck the "talking heads"... He's scarin' me!!!!!.

His "run to the center" has been " a run to the right...to the right of almost every democrat I know".
I'd love to see a POLL of democrats who are comfortable with his latest statements.....
Kerry is taking this "run to the center" to an extreme. I'm afraid we'll lose a few more votes to Nader.
I'm from Kansas, an "R" state for sure... I'm hearing grumbling's from progresive friends.....thinking about going Nader....

[mzmolly]

58. I think the way the campaign handled the comment was worse then the

comment itself.

Kerry did not say he would have gone to war, he said he would have givin the President the authority ~ to leverage for inspections. I repeat the authority to leverage for inspections ...

Latha, rinse repeat...

:hi:

[kwolf68]

60. Well

As someone vehemently anti-war IT DID BOTHER ME. When I heard him say it I was disheartened. Look, I didn’t mind the jingoistic nature of our convention. We needed to show the American people we are pro-soldier and we have a lot of awesome vets in our corner. The DNC was about showcasing all sides of our ideas. Dennis Kucinich and several others were allowed to speak to their anti-war convictions. We had people from all over the map so its FINE…I believe our party is a true big-tent party.

However, Kerry’s response did bother me, because it aligns him with Bush on a policy I hold in contempt.

There are a myriad of other reasons to vote for Kerry and that is why my support for him will not waver a single bit. I trust this team, have confidence and conviction in Kerry/Edwards. I have never been so dedicated to getting them elected, but YES…I hated that response.

That being said…As I was searching for reasons for this confounding response I came to the conclusion that Kerry could have done it for the soldiers dead from that war. Had Kerry come out and said, “NO, the war was not just”, then he is saying, “There was no reason for those 1000 soldiers to die.” Now, we may believe that the case, but he can’t project such a somber image to the nation. In short, he must say American deaths were not in vain yet the dynamics of this war have been severely botched by Bush.

If Kerry doesn’t bring quick resolution to this war then he will not be re-elected in 2008. He will get stern challenges from his left-flank and will be defeated or what happened to LBJ can happen to Kerry. It was the LEFT who took down Johnson, not the right. While Kerry may think he has the left wrapped up (and to some extent he does), he better not forsake them or he’s a one term President.

I don’t mean to sound negative about Kerry, because anyone who knows my stand knows I have been in his corner from the onset, waging many spirited discussions with the Dean people, a group of people who (since Dean’s defeat) I have come to admire more and more while also gaining a greater appreciation for Dean.

[Wheelie_Alex]

62. He hurt himself more...

when he tried to spin the whole issue. Most of the people don't care about the intricacies of giving the "President" authority as a threat or any of that shit. Alot of the people I have talked about this say the same thing about his explaination, "Sounds like bullshit to me."
Can't say I blame them.

I hate having what I heard with my own ears or saw with my own eyes explained to me also. Like I have said before, "Is some fucking clarity from Kerry too much to ask for?"

[warrior1]

63. Thanks for all the post guys

I might get two or three responses.

Anyway, after listening to Randi Rhodes today, explain, again what he meant, it makes perfect since. Taken out of context it looks like he gave bush an attaboy, in reality he's setting bush up for the debates. He's going to bitch slap bush with he didn't go back to congress within the 48 hours, he didn't wait for the inspectors to get done and he rush to war. She said a lot more that would be worth listening to when they archive it. What bush did 'was' illegal.

I feel better, still it's a long way Nov.

[noamnety]

65. can't wait for the debates

Anything he explained in a sound bite would be a loss because diplomacy is not a yes or no deal.

But oh yes, in a debate, he will have a chance to fully explain his position, and it will be beautiful.