Here's an excellent example of Kerry playing to the left & right...

[tedzbear]

...yet convincing no one. By trying to stand for both sides to the same argument he is really confusing and even sounds devious:


When Bush challenged his challenger to say whether he would still vote to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, Kerry responded, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for the president to have."

The only difference, Kerry said, was that he would have used that authority "more effectively" than Bush.

Kerry pointedly refuses to say that it was wrong to go to war, or even to admit that he was mistaken to vote to give Bush the authority to do so. That's too bad. The Democratic nominee does himself few favors by suggesting he would be a kinder, gentler George W. Bush.
---The Capital Times


Kerry defends his vote for the war authorization by saying Saddam would never have allowed inspections otherwise. But knowing what we know now (no WMD or proof of al-Qaeda connection), why is a small technicality like enforcing inspections worth authorizing a tragic war based on errors (or as some would insist, lies). Like Bush, Kerry believes that he is never wrong, even when confronted by the facts.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-09.htm

[molly]

1. What do you suggest?

and what is your point - aggravation - a flame war - perhaps an intelligent discussion about what to do about it? Oh, and did you watch Chris Matthews sock it to them?

[tedzbear]

5. Kerry needs to take a stand, one way or the other...

...instead of confusing everyone as to where he really stands. Is he going to escalate the war or is he going to get us out ASAP? So far, one can't tell what he intends on doing, only that he will do it "better." Better can mean a world of things.

[molly]

12. What's your problem? I am not confused.....

he's our candidate - at least he's MY candidate - what about you? Do you think someone else could do a better job? Please let it all hang out and tell us your motives for posting SO F'N MANY NEGATIVE POSTS!!!!

[David Dunham]

2. Why Kerry voted 2 years ago is the PAST. Forget it. Care about Iraq now!

[wyldwolf]

3. Here's an excellent example of a Kerry basher repeating the same...

...talking point. Same as yesterday and the day before. And probably the day before that.

I have a suggestion for you: Don't vote for him.

And speak for yourself. I'm convinced.

[JI7]

11. isn't that the truth

i told another one before which kept complaining about kerry that he doesn't have to vote for him. and then he got angry at me and started attacking me and saying i was arrogant and other crap for saying that. it showed they only wanted attention.

[wyldwolf]

15. tedthebear is becoming a serial Kerry basher...

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

4. What is your point with this?

Like it or not, Kerry is the Democratic nominee.
One of two people is going to occupy the White House in January. It's either going to be Kerry, or Bush.

So, like I said, what is your point?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[iwantmycountryback]

13. Are you sure the same?

It's ironic that George Bush thinks John Kerry has the same opinions as him considering how he's trying to say Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the senate.

Let's see:Most liberal senator compared to a very conservative President

How exactly are they the same?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

16. If you seriously think that Kerry and Bush are the "SAME" then...

There's nothing I can say...

Except something I remember Will Pitt said a while ago. I'm paraphrasing here, but I remember it was during the primaries, and he mentioned the best reasons to vote for any of the nine candidates the Democratic party had.
Those reasons were:
Rice
Rumsfield
Perle
Ashcroft
Thompson
Wolfowitz

And the simple fact that none of the nine Democratic candidates would even think of appointing these kind of people to their important positions. Not Kerry. Not even Lieberman.

[Old and In the Way]

20. The same?

If you are wrong on the big picture, I guess I won't take your opinions on the details too seriously.

[Snoggera]

6. Others have said it more eloquently than me

but this post is questioning something because the poster doesn't understand.

Vote for authority.

The authority, in the hands of anything other than a madman, would be used wisely. Send a message.

The UN will be sent in to complete the job.

If this or that, then the other.

I am so sick of this one-dimensional shit. I refuse to apologize for attempting to explain something that can't be reduced to a "soundbyte" or a simplistic "hee haw" couple of words.

If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

[wyldwolf]

9. It's a rightwing trait, actually, to only see things...

...as "either this or that," or in "black or white." No shades of gray. With us or against us. Fortunate for those paying attention we see the difference.

[Snoggera]

17. I hope you're agreeing with me!

good response in any case. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

23. yes

I guess it takes a bit more intelligence to understand voting for authority to wage war if deemed necessary is different than voting for war. Kerry's only downfall was believing the "president." But, of course, so did many people - including Howard Dean.

[Snoggera]

24. Rut Roh - can of worms, meet

...............................

(ducking for cover)

[Blue_Roses]

19. well said!

why can't the "confused" understand it was the vote for authority, NOT a vote to go to war. The resolution is not written that way, however, Bush used these votes to his advantage to do what he wanted. There's the real answer and truth to the "confusion."

[oasis]

7. Let's suppose for a moment that everything you say about Kerry is correct.

What course should DUers take to undo what is already out of our hands?

[tedzbear]

10. There's NO wrong.

Just an election lost to Bush. Iraq is what this election will turn on. The economy and everything else is dependent on it. Write to Kerry and tell him to be more specific as to how he will get us out of this mess, instead of sounding like Bush Lite.


edit: You changed your message to "out of our hands" from "wrong." Nothing is out of our hands. We can write to Kerry like I said.

By the same token, I could say, "Why should I vote at all, because it's all out of my hands."

[oasis]

21. Kerry is well aware of Democrats who strongly oppose the invasion

and occupation. Many of both parties oppose the occupation but to a much lesser degree.

Kerry has advised those who believe that he would go war in Iraq in the same irresponsible, reckless manner that Bush did, "please don't vote for me".

[DaveinMD]

14. how horrible

we may actually elect a President who sees complexity in an issue.

[iwantmycountryback]

31. the Dubya view of things

How could John Kerry see something so simple as war not in as black and white a way as I do. Just because he's actually served in a war while I was getting arrested for DWI, doesn't mean he's correct on seeing war as not a simple issue.

[library_max]

18. Sing along with Max.

Oh, the original post is frightful,
Its poster deaf to responses insightful,
The whole thread can't help but stink -
Let it sink, let it sink, let it sink!

[incapsulated]

22. Please answer a simple question

If he now knows that there were no WMD, why would he still vote for inspections?

The answer just doesn't make sense, folks, and I'm in his corner, here.

[Snoggera]

25. Because

what he NOW knows is not what ANYONE knew at the time.

If you knew NOW there were no WMD is different from saying if I knew now what I knew then.

Kerry voted for the authority of the president to use his ability to convince others that they needed to get "tough" in showing Iraq (Saddam) that they meant business. A war without the assistance and concern of the world was not seen as being a possibility at the time because no one had, in the modern world, engaged in a PRE-EMPTIVE war since Hitler. No one imagined they would spin and twist and lie and kill for NO reason.

Everyone who was civilized, including many (most) in the senate believed no american president would ever be foolish enough to launch a pre-emptive war based upon lies (lies not only to the average american, but to members of Congress and the Senate AS WELL)

Does that make sense yet?????????????????????????????

[incapsulated]

28. But that WAS the QUESTION!

"Knowing what you know now, would you still vote for IWR"?

THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

Does that make sense yet, or do you still want to CHANGE THE ORINGINAL QUESTION BECAUSE KERRY'S ANSWER DOESN'T MAKE SENSE???

C'mon, now.

It was a bad answer to a question he should have ignored, period.

[tedzbear]

29. You lost me with your second sentence.

Your logic is so complex and twisted I can't understand a word of it.

Please try and simplify.

Thanks.

[tedzbear]

26. Thank you.

I take the liberty to include your most magnificent expose on this same topic:

It doesn't make any sense, so they just keep repeating his explaination of his IWR vote over and over and over. Even though THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. The question was: KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW.

Now, I think I know what is going on here. He didn't want to disavow his vote, for fear of looking like he was flip-flopping or admitting he was wrong. So instead he repeats his justification for the vote, even though that wasn't the question and his answer ultimately doesn't make any sense. If you now KNOW there are NO WMD, there is no justification for the vote, period.

Really, the fuckup was that he shouldn't have taken the bait and refused to answer any questions put to him by the Chimp through the press to begin with.

*sigh*

[tedzbear]

32. Candidates keep answering questions that they were not even asked!

And they expect us to miss it! Folks, this is a time honored technique of political manipulation in which a candidate avoids a very hot topic that they don't want to take a stand on. So they answer a question of their own making, similar enough to the original one but requiring a different and "safe" answer.

I am so tired of it. Yawn.

[DrFunkenstein]

34. You're Right, But You're Wrong

You're right, Kerry shouldn't have answered such a dumb-ass hypothetical (politics 101), but his answer makes it's own sense.

The point of holding inspections was to find any existent WMDs and ensure that no future threats could come into existence - this was the rationale for their continuance, and not an inspection regime of a few months (a fact-finding trip).

Given Saddam's extensive past, forced inspections were the right thing to do.

What you also forget is that we know that Saddam was, remarkably, cooperating with inspections (outside of refusing to let scientists be questioned - typical Saddam). And Kerry has said on Meet The Press that there is no reason why inspections couldn't be continuing today, even if no WMDs were found.

Personally, I disagree with giving Bush authority, given his own personal record of dumb-ass-ness. But I understand why Kerry answered as he did, and am content that he would have run things effectively in Bush's place. Draw your own conclusions.

[incapsulated]

37. Why, thank you. :) n/t

[Snoggera]

30. If he now knows that there were no WMD, why would he still vote for inspec

I answered the question. If you are incapable of seeing it, then there's no more answers to give. I repeat myself.


what he NOW knows is not what ANYONE knew at the time.

If you knew NOW there were no WMD is different from saying if I knew now what I knew then.

Kerry voted for the authority of the president to use his ability to convince others that they needed to get "tough" in showing Iraq (Saddam) that they meant business. A war without the assistance and concern of the world was not seen as being a possibility at the time because no one had, in the modern world, engaged in a PRE-EMPTIVE war since Hitler. No one imagined they would spin and twist and lie and kill for NO reason.

Everyone who was civilized, including many (most) in the senate believed no american president would ever be foolish enough to launch a pre-emptive war based upon lies (lies not only to the average american, but to members of Congress and the Senate AS WELL)

Does that make sense yet?????????????????????????????

[incapsulated]

35. You are playing a silly game

"If you knew NOW there were no WMD is different from saying if I knew now what I knew then."

Indeed it is different. But since the question was in fact the former and not the latter, then answering it in the affirmative makes no sense.

You are changing the question in order for his answer to be logical, which is understandable if you are a paid to cover his ass, but I am not. He fucked up and that is all there is to it.

[Snoggera]

36. I don't play games

I gave them up when I grew up.

I use your own words, and you use words to defend that make no logical sense.

That's the way it is.

Grow up.

[incapsulated]

39. "Grow up"?

What exactly did I say that was so horribly immature?

That you are playing rhetorical games? The oldest politicians on block play them.

[Snoggera]

40. Fools and those with no true information to defend their positions

always resort to the personal.

What you said that was mentally immature was the inability to understand, if you even bothered to read the complete text, of what was said.

Welcome to the ADD world of soundbytes and inability to comprehend anything deeper than an informational well of 1 inch.

Poster boy anyone?

[incapsulated]

44. lol

Talk about projection. Personal? First you tell me to grow up then you call me a fool.

And I'm "mentally immature?"

:crazy:

[Snoggera]

33. That was not the question

And if your in his corner, I am pleased, but disappointed in the twisted shit I have just read to cover your ass.

Your question?

"If he now knows that there were no WMD, why would he still vote for inspections?"

Note you said INSPECTIONS.

Can you recognize the difference between what you are attempting to argue with me about and the words you yourself wrote?

[tedzbear]

41. It still doesn't make any difference. You keep changing the question.

The question put to Kerry was:

"Knowing what you know now," not "what you knew back then." Kerry keeps expounding on the second question, which wasn't what he was asked.


Mr. Kerry, knowing what you know now, and NOT what you knew then, would you still vote to authorize going to war?


Kerry keeps talking about what he voted for back then is right because it was based on what he knew back then. We know THAT, we want to know what he would do now with hindsight. He refuses to answer that and this is why I don't trust him.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

27. The right response to this question.

Kerry needs to be very clear. Every time they ask him would he have still voted the same way, he should say, "I would not have invaded Iraq with no cause and no exit strategy," and then shut up. People will understand that.

Nobody gives a crap about the resolution or Kerry's vote on it. The question isn't literal, it is symbolic of whether we can trust Kerry to be able to make decisions. Kerry can certainly project that -- he just isn't right now, and it hurts him. That isn't bashing, it is an observation by someoe who will vote for him (for indeed ABB).


Kerry is in a tight spot on this because at heart his "complexity" argument is disingenuous. *Nobody* believed Bush was going to seriously explore any other options. *Everybody* knew he had the invasion on the drafting table from the day Daddy was targeted, and 9/11 was a paper-thin excuse. So when Kerry tries to draw a disinction based on his alleged trust of the president, he's playing a political angle, not speaking the truth.

In these situations, it is best to ignore the question as a trap (which it is), and use it to spring to the real thing people care about -- does he think Bush invaded without thinking it through. The answer there is a deafening YES!, and he can say that with conviction.

This is so damned obvious, I'm shocked it hasn't been Kerry's strategy since the very first time the question came up. Enough with the Clintonesque technicalities. People HATE that, and we already have a bad rep as the party of indecisive intellectual elitists. Cut through the college logic exam and get to what matters.

[lunarboy13]

38. That's a damn good answer

And it's one that is not different than Kerry's. He just needs to articulate it as well as you have.

Yes, people get caught up in the difference between voting for the resolution and voting for a war with Iraq -- and rightly so.

But what most people did not remember was what Kerry said in january (which was brought out on Hardball today) when he said that He was against the way in which the President went to war and the way he waged it, and that there was a better way of making Saddam accountable.

But I like yours better...

[rullery]

42. Kerry needs to speak clearly

Many of us who support Kerry see him as unwilling to take a clear stand on issues. Perhaps too many years in the Senate have made him accustomed to long-winded speeches that leave him wiggle room, so that he is hard to pin down. Maybe it is his advisers who caution him not to say anything that might offend potential swing voters. Whatever the cause, it may cause him real damage in the election.

Bill Clinton had a gift for speaking in such a way, while still endearing himself to the electorate. John Kerry is no Bill Clinton, and his efforts to copy Clinton in this regard fall flat. John Edwards on the other hand speaks far more clearly, and I would have preferred to see him at the top of the ticket. Edwards however lacks the war record of Kerry, as well as political experience.

I hope that Kerry will recognize that he needs to put away the wishy-washy stuff, and speak his mind on issues from the heart. I think that most people would respect that, and he will win more votes that way. He especially needs to do this in the upcoming presidential debates. Kerry can make mince-meat of Bush, if he speaks clearly and directly, and avoids esoteric explanations. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Carni]

43. NEVER MIND

EOM

[incapsulated]

45. I agree. n/t