Kerry Stands by Iraq War Voting Record

[wicket]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040809/ap_on_el_pr/kerry

Responding to President Bush (news - web sites)'s question with several of his own, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq (news - web sites) knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief.

The Democratic presidential nominee said he hoped to begin reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq within six months of taking office if he is elected. "It is an appropriate goal to have," he said, but added that achieving it would depend on broader international assistance, better stability within Iraq and other related factors.

-snip-

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"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 they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

[NMDemDist2]

1. good points all from our candidate n/t

[dawgman]

14. Look I will vote for kerry, but I don't buy him blaming the lies

for his vote. I knew they were lies. I could point to evidence before it ever went to a vote in the senate. He is just as culpable as anyone else.

And if you'll recall not one senator would sign the CBC's protest of the election results. Again Kerry is culpable.

[trogdor]

100. Michael Moore said it well on Real Time.

"John Kerry believed the President, just like 70% of the American people....If you can't trust the President of the United States, then where are we?"

In other words, don't go blaming Kerry for this. He did what he thought was the right thing to do at the time. Anyone who believes he would have pursued war with Saddam Hussein with the intensity and single-mindedness of George W. Bush isn't paying attention.

[dawgman]

139. Like I said I knew we were entering into war based on lies...

How is it that a 20 year vet of the senate didn't? Do I just do more research?

"Anyone who believes he would have pursued war with Saddam Hussein with the intensity and single-mindedness of George W. Bush isn't paying attention."

War is by its very nature agressive and intense. The point of war is to kill the other guys, to steal their land and resources. If the war had been waged it would, by necessity, have been intense in its machinations and single-minded in its pursuit of death and theivery.

Kerry is defending his own short-comings. Fine. Whatever. Just don't try and sugar-coat it. Kerry fucked up and supported a bullshit agressive war. HIS bad. Not mine. I knew I was being lied to. I marched and shouted and protested and contacted my Reps. about it. Kerry enabled it, just as he enabled the presidency of this current bass-ackwards admin. Fuck him.

[whistle]

2. As he should, these Swift-Boat agitators against Kerry....

...are nothing but paid assassins for the right wing moneyed neo-cons trying to smear John Kerry.

[Larkspur]

3. If Kerry wins, I can't wait for him to be the Prez to tell the last man

that he died for a mistake -- Bush and his.

Oh the irony of a Vietnam Vet willingly blessing the sending of American troops into another quagmire.

Kerry may win this year, but he will go down like LBJ. And maybe his demise will finally turn the tide on the pro-military b.s. from both parties.

[Demobrat]

8. You're dreaming.

Kerry admit he made a mistake? Uh huh. And tomorrow W will grow a conscience and resign.

[goobergunch]

12. Sadly, you're probably right.

Every time I'm feeling somewhat better about Kerry being the Democratic nominee, he goes and says something like this....after four years of militarism, where's the choice?

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

/me blows several large fuses.


*mutters*He's-better-than-Bush-He's-better-than-Bush-He's-better-than-Bush

[54anickel]

15. My Repug B-i-L threw that argument at me today.

He'd sent me a link to the Swiftboat ad. I replied pointing to some of the truths we know about this group, where there funding comes from and how it smacks of the same lies as used on Cleland and McCain.

Part of his reply:

As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a single truth told by anyone. This is not about right and wrong. It's about bullshitting enough people to get elected.

But if Bush and his cronies are so wrong about going / staying at war, why is Kerry making his whole campaign about his whole four months "at war"? Even if he was a "hero", that doesn't make him presidential material. Why won't he tell us what he is going to do to fix it?
I'll tell you why............................because he agrees with Bush that we should be there. He has no plans to stop it. He has no plans just political rhetoric.

[MasonJar]

30. I doubt that there are two things that Bush and Kerry have in com-

mon and I cannot believe that you're tarring Kerry with the Bush oil mania. Kerry has a conscience and is truly compassionate. He is an actual hero despite what the SOB's say. They are playing with fire when their boy was a deserter. We need to be out there in the LTTEs putting the onus on the Stump.

[Pastiche423]

32. Nah

Kerry tarred himself - twice!

[54anickel]

34. Thank you!

[54anickel]

33. Please don't accuse me of "tarring" Kerry.

I was against the war. My Repug B-i-L, surprisingly, was also against the war. Your pointing out the very subjective "has a conscience" "truly compassoinate" "actual hero" doesn't sound much different than the type of defense they pull for Shrub.

The article does point out to the differences between the 2 with regards to SS and the economy. BUT, and especially in light of another thread regarding other nations not willing to change their amount of aid to us in Iraq even if Kerry wins, there is not much he will be able to do differently. AND, knowing what he knows now, he would still have gone to war? Just differently? He'd have gotten allies on board? How if there were no WMD? What basis? Now he's back to the "Saddam was a bad, bad, man".

I'll pull the Kerry lever, and the odds are pretty good that my B-i-L will too. But how our votes will truly be the same is they won't be "for" Kerry but against Bush. We'll both be holding our noses for different reasons.

[demoman123]

96. Your B-i-L is right.

Kerry will not end the war. But he is different from Bush on taxes and social security. So I guess I'm going to trudge down to the polls and vote for him. Sigh.

[GeronimoSkull]

37. Good to have that out in the open... I guess

Here's a link for that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

[Emillereid]

40. I'm with you -- this may be the proverbial straw.

I have been precinct walking for this man and I just raised several thousand dollars to help my club open an office to get out the vote. But to be honest, I don't know if I can take any more. He has the perfect out -- he could have easily taken the reasonable position taken by other senators that had they known what they know now they would not have voted for the war -- but NO -- he has to mimic the Chimp and say he would still vote for the war. He might be better than Bush, but he seems to be narrowing the gap every day. He clearly has decided that he doesn't need my vote or my work.

[cidliz2004]

140. This should help explain his vote and his consistency in his opinion

Another Du'r posted this:


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.

[qwlauren35]

165. This one statement...

makes me physically ill. I have been campaigning my ass off for this man, and all of a sudden, my desire to help him win the election just went right out the window.

HOW CAN WE TELL HIM????

[qwlauren35]

166. I have called the Kerry Office...

202-712-3000

And I would urge others to do the same.

I was given some reassurance that Kerry's stance on the Iraq war is being twisted, and in fact, his position is that he would have authorized force, but would NOT have used it except as a negotiating tool, and only with full UN backing.

And I was told to go to the website. However, apparently there have been MANY calls on this issue, and I think we need to continue to make them in an effort to get clarification.

[grytpype]

4. ugh...

"he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq (news - web sites) knowing what he does now"

Ugh. Yuck. Feh.

I'm really sorry that Kerry has to say things like that. It turns my stomach. But I just tell myself, "It's all to get rid of Bush. It's all to get rid of Bush. It's all to get rid of Bush. It's all to get rid of Bush."

[aneerkoinos]

13. PNAC

This skulls and bones man is not part of the bozo-group who wan't to declare openly the gospel of Imperialism (and shoot their leg in their childish pride while doing so). No, that's not the way to run the business and TPTB are wary disappointed with the Miserable Failure, so here comes Kerry da Man, the Silent American. Who, of course, fully supports the Project for New American Century for what it really means, and promises to do better job then the Miserable Failure, what ever it takes. Everything is what it will take if the doomed project is not abandoned soon!

And here's me, hoping for project for Century of Respect, Century of Cooperation, Century of Wisdom, Century of Peace. Not another American Century but Century of all the people.

[54anickel]

18. Hi aneerkoinos!

Good to run into you again! :hi:

The whole thing does lend credence to the "Suits" idea, doesn't it? I hate that idea and I don't want to believe it. More and more that's what it looks like. They pick their favorite for each party and let us play democracy for a day once every 4 years. Plutocracy - that's where we are.

[aneerkoinos]

28. The democracy game

Cheers!

I'm afraid the democracy game has been run by plutocracy - the Casino - since the Founding Fathers, and we know who wins at the Casino! :D

What real democratic changes there have been, they've been allways wide grass-roots movement that the party system dared not ignore - trade unions in 30's, civil rights movements in 60' etc.

[54anickel]

35. I remember a discussion, quite a while back, regarding the Casino.

aka Suits. It was about Carter being the last dark horse to have slipped through their fingers. He was not supposed to make it. I think the conversation revolved around Dean's grass roots popularity at the time. It was early on in the game and someone made the call that he'd be taken down quickly by the suits - didn't want another Carter dark horse win. There was an old Carter article posted with it.

Wish I could remember that one.....

[fjc]

5. Well, I knew he'd have to answer that question sooner or later.

It's a very nuanced answer, which is just like him I guess. He's gonna run on the notion that he'd do the same things, only better. Not what I thought I'd hear, not what I thought I wanted to hear. He's saying Bush did the right thing in the wrong way, when all of us, or at least most of us, thought he did the wrong thing in the wrong way. It may be, and I think it probably is, smarter politics. But I am a disappointed Democrat who will still vote enthusiastically for Kerry, as much on account of my disdain for Bush and his whole enterage, as much as for my commitment to the Democratic Party.

[booyakasha]

6. is dis a joke?

I thought we was against the stupid war.

[wicket]

7. hmmmmmmmm....

[wicket]

88. kick

:kick:

[Charlie Brown]

10. Americans are nationalistic morons

they obsess over the dangers of "outsiders" from different countries and usually require some kind of scapegoat to take the blame for their own shortcomings (communists, liberals, gays, minorities). Sadly, I think Kerry has to speak the language of middle-America to win their trust. There were many Democrats who were bullied by the Repugs to vote for the war just like Kerry. Never forget, our side did not start this war. This was not a retaliatory war against aggression or a war against ethnic genocide by the international community. This was a war ignited by the sentiments of one man against a regime that had embarrassed his father and witheld oil from the hands of his campaign backers. That is not what John Kerry stands for, and it never will be what he stands for.

[mike_c]

11. but it is what he stands by....

John Kerry would appear to disagree with you.

[Charlie Brown]

22. So does 40+% of the country, apparently

Do you have any idea how many Americans still support this imbecillic war? Does misguided support for a war we were all told was a good thing mean all those people are evil? Surely some of you know people who still support the war. Do you think Kerry can reach these people on a peace platform? Kerry has to present himself as a candidate who's tough on national security and defense. He has said he'll reduce troop numbers in Iraq and work to bring the International community in, which is a step in the right direction. He'll never get elected any other way (the Repugs will start yelling that he's a peacenik and isolationist). I'd prefer a Dean or Kucinich over Kerry any day, but Kerry is our candidate. Edwards has outspokenly supported the war for some time now (his speech at the DNC basically gave it a thumbs up), yet I've heard no one denouncing him for this pov. If I recall, Kerry has also said he opposes gay marriage and supports gun owners rights. Will any of this honestly keep any of you from voting for him?

[mike_c]

24. JK apparently has to choose between voters who support...

...the invasion of Iraq and those who oppose it. He has evidently chosen to direct his message toward those who support it. I understand that, but I'm damned disappointed.

on edit-- of course I'm not going to vote for him. I will not vote for a pro-war candidate, especially a pro-preemptive-illegal-imperialist-PNAC-war candidate!

[biscodawg]

31. Yes

I will not vote for John Kerry either.

[Charlie Brown]

36. Did you vote for Bill Clinton or Gore?

Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, and even airstrikes on Iraq in '98. Do you applaud when you hear either of them speak, or do you routinely shun them as "pro-preemptive-illegal-imperialist-PNAC-war-mongers."

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. He NEVER said that

He did not run in and win the primaries as an anti-war candidate. He is staying consistant with his position.

[mike_c]

9. not my president....

Iraq is the central theater in the PNAC war on democracy. Knowing that, Kerry would still vote for it. Not much more to say after that.

[stldemocrat]

16. Huh?!

Is it too late to replace him with Dean?

[hansolsen]

48. Those of us who supported Dean saw this coming a mile away.

I have often wondered what Kerry's primary campaign might have looked like if Howard Dean had not been in the race at all. Kerry might very well have tried to run to the right of Bush on Iraq, just to prove his "strength" on defense and military issues.

In any case we are now going into the presidential debates with little hope of the nation hearing a real discussion of what's wrong, philosophically, with the war in Iraq, and what the real alternatives are to spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun.

I still hope that the Kerry campaign will see fit to talk about dealing with the root causes of terrorism, and restoring an American foreign policy that is based on fundamental fairness and equity. But I'm not holding my breath.

I will vote for Kerry regardless, but only once. If he turns out to be Bush lite on the war in Iraq and on "terrorism", and if he lets corporate America run the economy such that income disparity continues to grow, I will work as hard to get rid of John kerry as I now do to get rid of George Bush.

In my sixty years knocking around the planet I have never been so repulsed by a Republican president in office, and so disappointed in the overall state of affairs of the Democratic Party. So I say this to every DU blogger who is happy with what Kerry and his surrogates are saying to defend Kerry's various votes on Iraq -- there is a battle on for the soul of the Democratic Party; that battle will transcend this election -- and John Kerry hasn't "reported for duty" in that battle yet. Not on my side, he hasn't.

So say I.

[Snivi Yllom]

78. "told you so"

I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it!

[OK_DemX2]

133. And yet Dean had his own credibility issues,

requesting that Bush/Cheney not be so secret, yet keeping his Vermont files sealed because, "there is nothing in there". Come on, if there is nothing in there, and you are truly running on credibility, unseal the documents and prove you are credible, not just mutter that there was nothing in the documents. All candidates have issues, I am disappointed that Kerry has come down on this side of this issue, but please don't use the I told you so comment, when Dean had other issues as well. The only way to fix the office of President is to rid this country of the Electoral College so the office of President is voted on by the people (all the people) and there are no more "battleground states". There is just one vote for one person, that would really shake up both parties and truly open the door for all views to at least be represented during an election, instead of voting for the "least offensive candidate".

Until America takes personal responsibility for all of it's own problems (don't try to remove the speck in your neighbors eye until you remove the log from your own) we have no credibility and will continue to receive derision from the rest of the world. We have more blood on our hands in 200 years than most countries that are three times as old, yet we want to take the moral "high ground", please.

Also, this isn't just about the Presidential election, this is about the direction of our nation, both at a local state level and at the national level, one man is not going to change this, until that idea is rooted in our conscienceness, we are doomed to fail as a democracy, and as a nation.

[candy331]

161. I feel your pain, as my more than half a century of years shows.

[candy331]

160. Good question, hit with ton of bricks answers I bet cha.

[aneerkoinos]

17. Post Mortem

Can we learn anything from this? You anti-war Democratic activists should have woken up at latest when Kerry made his anti-democratic anti-Venezuela remarks, find out what is going on, and organized to kick out Kerry's PNAC foreign policy team OR ELSE and force Kerry to be YOUR President instead of PNAC president.

But blinded by one-dimension ABB mentality you rallied behind Kerry in the name of unity, the classical left sell-out pretext, and now it is too late, once again. Better luck next time, keep up the good fight! :)

[stldemocrat]

19. Clothespin

So hopefully the DNC will be sending out clothespins for all progressives to put on our noses when we go to the polls in November.

[Disturbed]

20. LBJ?

Yes.

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[54anickel]

46. Ummm, if I remember correctly, it was in the name of "electability". God

I hated those threads. You overseas folks don't pull any punches, do you? Touche' Aneerkoinos. :hi:

[nolabels]

79. Word by word and bit by bit, we are fitting the fat rich men...........

through the needles eye slit. They (and we)all knew this corporate litmus test for Iraq vote was going down like this. We shouldn't be surprised or repulsed, we should engage, hold the feet to the fire and make the demands.

In a culture of incremental change, that was put in place a long time ago, finding ways around things takes much patience. Artists know of patience, we should emulate them to help create a form of political art and not be swayed by temporary set backs.

A piece of sculpture in clay should not be burnished with adornments till it's placed in the fire where it becomes worthy of holding it's contents

Santa Christmas Bell Ornament


http://www.sculpey.com/Projects/projects_SantaChristmasBellTreeOrnament.htm

[sampsonblk]

163. Ditto, but now he's our

We bought him, and now he's our guy. I just hope some better Dems run in 2008. But for now, I don't see what we can do is except complain to each other and then still go out and support the guy.

Then if anyone asks me, I always say Go Kerry and No Bush. What else can we do?

[Kimber Scott]

21. I don't like it.

How can anyone say, knowing their were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we should have gone to war to get rid of them anyway? I can understand this shit coming from Bush. He's an idiot. I don't like it coming from Kerry. It's confusing bullshit, playing to a bunch of right wing war mongers. for what? Because Saddam was a bad man?

It's bullshit and I'm not going to pretend it isn't.

[SOS]

81. It sure is BS

but it's political, not policy, BS.
If he says yes, he pisses off the anti-war Democrats.
If he says no, we get $100 million in "flip-flop" Bush TV ads.
Just like the vote itself, this is all politics. Kerry took a gamble in 2002 and lost.
Now he feels he has to stick by it to avoid an onslaught from the right.

[Z-E-R-0]

23. Uhhh What the Hell??

Is Kerry joking? So he's trying to tell me that he would sacrifce 1000 of our sons and daughters for....WHAT?? Kerry may be a Bush-Lite, but I rather have a lite version of Bush than a full-strength one. I'm just fearful that Nader may get even more votes this year than he did in 2000!

[Disturbed]

26. Will Iraq implode before the US election?

(clip) “The truth is that there never was a significant people-based opposition movement inside Iraq for the Bush administration to call on to form a government to replace Saddam. It is why the United States has instead been forced to rely on the services of individuals tainted by their association with foreign intelligence services, or drawn from opposition parties heavily infiltrated by agents of Saddam's former security services.

(clip) Regardless of the number of troops the United States puts on the ground or how long they stay there, Allawi's government is doomed to fail. The more it fails, the more it will have to rely on the United States to prop it up. The more the United States props up Allawi, the more discredited he will become in the eyes of the Iraqi people - all of which creates yet more opportunities for the Iraqi resistance to exploit.

(clip) We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in Iraq that will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-08.htm

*Kerry and Edwards should read this article and hire Mr. Ritter as a consultant.

[mike_c]

27. welcome to DU!

:toast:

[stepnw1f]

29. He Would Have Authorized an attack on Iraq...

knowing what we know now? That's not what I wanted to hear. I'm puzzled by this statement. Is it the authorisation he approves or the attack on Iraq?

[GeronimoSkull]

38. See post #12

If you can stomach it.

[stepnw1f]

42. I Know I Can Because I have To

and do to :evilgrin:

[MARALE]

93. the authorization

According to another article that quoted Kerry. Remember his speech when he voted, he wanted to have the UN behind this war before we went. That was the President's decision. I am sure if he was president, he would follow a more Clinton-like plan with Iraq down the list. Kerry does not want to be seen as a flip-flopper and is trying to get the support of those that are not into the issues as much as the people here at DU.

[latebloomer]

39. Disgusting

and, sadly, unsurprising.

Apparently he does not feel he needs the antiwar left. Or he thinks that we'll vote for him regardless of his stance on the war.

For those who think he's merely parroting militarism in order to get elected and that he'll emerge minus the wolf's clothing, I ask-- "How many Presidents have surprised you with how left-wing they turned out to be?"

[Charlie Brown]

41. So, what's the answer here?

Do we all go over to Nader, a man who doesn't even feel he needs a party to win? Do we support Bush, the man who started this war? Do we vote Libertarian or Green, and effectively help Bush? Do we stay home? I don't see that we have any other choice anymore but to vote for Kerry if we want to make a difference (even if it's not a big difference).

[54anickel]

43. Vote him in but stay on his ass!

[latebloomer]

45. I don't see much of a choice either

Bush is atrocious, and he simply must go.

However, I am deeply distressed that the man we must elect seems to be thoroughly in the thrall of his corporate masters.

[PassingFair]

138. Two-Tier Policy

First we get rid of Bush;
then we get rid of Kerry.
The DLC must go.
I am sickened.

[sampsonblk]

60. Its worse than that

The swing voters are solidly in the "never should have gone in there" category. Why is Kerry dissing them too?

If the strategy has to be about swing voters, then the best candidate for the moment would be someone who never supported invading Iraq in the first place.

But anyway, Kerry is our guy. Too late to switch to a more mainstream guy now.

[otohara]

87. Sickening - I'm Disgusted Too

Kerry won't lie to us about going to war, but apparantly he doesn't mind being lied to? He's saying if he had the chance to be lied to AGAIN he would vote the same way?

[freemarketer]

44. As much as I hate Bush, this response by Kerry may cause be to simply

not vote. I was very much agains the war, took part in many of the demonstrations and still think we should vacate Iraq--stat. Super big mistake by Kerry.

SSSS

[Z-E-R-0]

47. I may just sit this one out as well

I agree with freemarketer...marching in every single demo against this stupid stupid war would almost be hypocritical if i voted for a pro-war candidate. the more i think of it, the more conflicted i am. i hate bush and everything he stands for...yet how can i vote for kerry who espouses the same militaristic crap as bush does? it seems that kerry is going after the wingnuts which is a horrible mistake because they will never vote kerry. he should appealing to his base.....which is us!!!!

[Pastiche423]

49. In my state, Oregon

on our paper ballots, we have the choice to vote a "write-in".

I used that choice in our primary, (since the nominee was already selected by the time we had our primary) and I will use it in November.

I believe kerry may be a little surprised when the anti-war votes he feels he is entitled to, don't end up in his column.

[Charlie Brown]

51. and Bush, who started this war, will be delighted

[dawgman]

53. Screw Bush, Screw Kerry and Screw the corporate entities that control them

Both. THe DLC has got to go or nothing will change. Every day that passes makes a third party, any third party, more viable.

[Pastiche423]

54. ~Yawn~

[freemarketer]

52. Zero. I was a Vietnam Ranger Captain (67-70). I don't hold anything

Kerry did to protest the war against him. I saw some unusual shit. But, in this case, the war was an overt fraud, and regardless of Bush's cupability for the invasion, it never should have happened. All those people who died and were injured--for nothing, IMO. Other things to think about? Maybe... But you know, even that is hard now.

~~~

[Turbo]

126. What is Sen. Kerry .....

What is Kerry doing??

I wore out two pairs of shoes marching against the Iraqi war, and now he says he would have gone into Iraq even without finding WMD's????

Who is advising him. Don Rumsfield?

[iamjoy]

50. What Is Wrong With Us?

Clinton was bombing Iraq! And is Kerry supposed to act like he was deceived?

Do we think Iraq is the only issue? I'm beginning to feel like Scarlett O'Hara. If you say war just one more time...I'm so sick of hearing about the war, it's ruining all the parties....

Think of how Kerry will fill judicial vacancies vs. how Bush will. Why do we need anymore motivation than that?

[hansolsen]

55. What is wrong with us?, you ask -- the same thing that was wrong in 2002

Running to the middle, taking war off the table by "triangulating the issue and getting to the right of Bush on the war, is exactly what Dems did in 2002. The Dems leadership tried to run on the economy, and on being all sweetness and light -- no controversy, no arguement on the grand issues of the day, just try to slide by and win the election, and leave the issues for later.

That strategy resulted in the Dems having their asses handed to them on a platter. That strategy is what Howard Dean fought against in the primaries, and supposedly gave the Party its spine back. Well, Howard is long gone, and little appreciated, and the DLC wing of the Party is in full control now. We might win but can we govern? We can appoint Justices, but can we really make Iraq right based on kerry's plans to date? And can we really prevent further terrorist attacks in America by triangulating Bush's "grand" plans and simply executing them better? I don't believe it.

Here is our choice as I see it -- Re-elect Bush and put the american people on record in support of the most distrous foreign policy in the nation's history or vote for pig in a poke.

[iamjoy]

57. You Forget 1994

The conventional wisdom is the Democrats lost Congress because we drifted too far to the left.

We still haven't gotten it back, and I can tell you, Dubya as president or not, we wouldn't be in such deep doo-doo if the Dems had control of the House and/or Senate.

[hippywife]

67. First time I've heard that one!

Conventional wisdom is that they have drifted so far center to right that there was little or no difference.

Since the primaries ended, many thousands of us have joined grassroots progressive organizations to affect change in the future. Our first aim must be to hold Kerry's feet to the fire on this issue.

[hansolsen]

76. Clinton's first term drifted left on cultural issues - gays in military ,

for example, and floundered with a bone headed health care initiative headed by the president's wife. Clinton's loss of standing had nothing to do with his stand on foreign policy and the grand issues of war and peace.

The lesson we should draw from 1994, is not that we dare not go too far left, but that we should not let cultural issues dominate the agenda to the exclusion of other factors. The other lesson is not to entrust presidential spouses with important jobs in the administration.


Being opposed to this war is not a "left" leaning policy. One can be a raving military hawk and be against the rolling disaster on wheels that is the Bush policy in the Middle East. I wish our candidate this year understood that, but he doesn't.

[arlib]

102. WRONG

For the millionth time, it's not about the Democratic Party being too far to the left (if only...., sigh). It's about not articulating a case for being a Democrat. It's about believing garbage like "The nation has drifted to the right and we must follow suit" like it is continental drift or an act of God. It's about playing defense all the time, conceding ground rather than fighting to take it. No wonder Nader has appeal. While I will vote for Kerry at this time, he's made it an odious choice with his stance.

Edit for sp.

[iamjoy]

130. Conventional Wisdom

Not necessarily what I believe.
But the conventional wisdom was that Clinton was taking us too far to the left.

If we as Democrats failed to state our case, that is why that conventional wisdom took hold, even though it wasn't true.

Hillary's Health Care initiative is a great example. Some blame her for 1994. She was trying to tackle a major problem with a big government solution. Universal Health Care is a very left idea. She went down in flames, it is logical for Democrats to conclude that the drift to the left cost them Congress.

Logical, not necessarily true.

[Zhade]

63. I imagine the IRAQI PEOPLE are also sick of this fucking war!

Jesus!

[Laughing Mirror]

69. But Kerry wants to take "pressure" of war off the Americans

No mention made of the Iraqis, a mere abstraction who happen to live in Iraq.

Kerry's dogged insistence on this war is puzzling, unless he knows something he's not telling us.

[BillZBubb]

56. I am VERY disappointed with Kerry.

I will vote for him, because anyone would be better than the Chimperor. But clearly he doesn't represent me or my beliefs about US foreign policy. I really did think better of him until this.

What a sad, pathetic statement by a supposedly honest, intelligent guy.

[sampsonblk]

58. Well at least this should shut the apologists up

I am sick of reading how he was "deceived" into voting for the war resolution. Well Kerry himself has laid that ridiculous bullshit to rest.

[Egnever]

64. If only

been fighting that fight forever now. Nut sadly i see them still making excuses even after the horses ass said himself.

Sadly Dem's can be as stupid as freepers in their blind allegiance.

[Zhade]

121. Never happen. They're willing to blind themselves to reality.

"Kerry didn't vote for war!" - even though his own words reveal he DID vote for war.

"He's the most liberal senator in Congress!" - even though there are ten Senators ranked more liberal than he is.

"He's never taken corporate money!" - even though he has, indeed, accepted corporate money, even from NEWSCORP.

And on, and on...

They don't want to see the truth. They'll be denying the draft even as they're called in front of the draft board under President Kerry, should we stay in Iraq-Nam.

Pathetic. They should have the courage to face the truth! We need them!

[Carolab]

59. Pick an issue

On which Bush and Kerry differ that matters a great deal to you, other than the war (like health care or the environment), and vote Kerry on that issue.

[LSK]

61. Good point

Its still dissappointing thou. We just have to remember ABB. There is no other choice.

With Bush, we will get more invasions, a draft, no progress on stem cell research, no progress on finding alternative fuels, more fear, more deficits, more disasters.

Kerry is not perfect, but look at the alternative to him.

[JackieO]

62. Sick

:puke:

[DaveSZ]

66. It makes it hard to vote for him

His problem is that he's all over the place on this issue.

There is video of him talking about how we can bring democracy to Iraq by invading, and then there is video of him talking about how he is an "anti-war candidate" in the primaries.

Then he votes against the 87 billion, and now despite the fact we know the basis for the war is bullshit, he would not have changed his vote.

Yeah I like him for judicial nominees and the environment, and I hope he wins because of that, but it makes him hard to vote for.

[GalleryGod]

65. It's Been A While Since I Employed My IGNORE List

The Shiite Wing is heard from once again!:argh:

Your Man in the Faculty Lounge:hangover: Dustin Off the Espresso Maker,:donut:

GG:hi:

[wicket]

70. I hope you don't mean me

:(

[dawgman]

71. I don't even understand what that means...

[hippywife]

68. Once again, nosepin firmly in place, Will Pitt. Still firmly in place.

[wackywill]

72. Wonderful

He had my vote two years ago............. where, oh where, has John Kerry GONE ?

Now who can I vote for, I will surely be voting against BUSH/KERRY KERRY/BUSH ?

[DaveSZ]

74. Here is the other option:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2004/j...


June 10, 2004

Torture memo puts focus on Nevada judge

ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A legal memo advising the White House that torturing al-Qaida captives "may be justified" in the war on terror has focused attention on Jay Bybee, a Nevadan who signed the document as a top Justice Department adviser in 2002.

Bybee, a former professor at the UNLV Boyd School of Law, headed a team that provided legal guidance to the Bush administration on a range of issues, including its course in pursuing terrorists and those with potential knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

An authority on constitutional and administrative law, Bybee, 50, returned to Las Vegas last year as a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He was confirmed by the Senate on a 74-19 vote in March 2003.

Bybee did not respond to a request Thursday for comment on a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about his role in producing the memo. A secretary at Bybee's Las Vegas office said the judge was unavailable and would have no comment.

-more

[Aidoneus]

73. So he makes his bed and lies in it

Here he takes company squarely on the side of the invasion and occupation, lamenting only that it has not had more "success" (a ghastly vision, when stripped of all deception and pretty packaging). The sheep's clothing may serve to shut some of "us" up from time to time and expect what there is no reason to expect. Basic decency is out of the question?--If this is the best that can be mustered up, then a more pressing matter than "one or the other" makes itself obvious.

[Elginoid]

77. I cannot in good conscious vote for this man.

looks like i'm going to be sitting out of a presidential election for the first time in my 25 years of being able to vote...oh, well...I'll still be there to vote for Obama...and rahm emanuel.

[georgewash]

83. Americans are such wusses...

All we ever want is our little security blanket, and no one is every willing to tough it out. No wonder the world community has so little respect for us.

Is Kerry better then bush, yes. But how much... Enough to be happy with, or just enough to be very, very slightly more inline with democratic ideals when compared to the current incredibly conservative president.

So what happens, we settle for Kerry, the Democratic party doesn't change, the system doesn't change, to most people Bush becomes a bad memory. One mistake in a long history of successes.. And then Kerry continues to help corporations, be involved with the war, and puts the screws to the American public, just in a little bit nicer way then his predecessor. Things will never change...

When is it going to be easy to bite the bullet and say screw the Democratic Party, screw the Republican party, and screw the puppet masters pulling the strings. There is never going to be an easy time, or an ideal time, if anything, the candidates proposed by both parties are only going to grow worse and worse. When will it be convenient to vote your conscience? When will the republican candidate be liberal enough? When will there be no risk involved? When will we wake up and be willing to sacrifice for what we believe in? I say we stand at an amazing time in history - A point where we can make an important choice, and send a clear message. The democratic party has to change, the republican party has to change, and we are the only ones who can force that change. By maintaining the status quo and settling for the lesser of two (very) evils, we do nothing but perpetuate the cycle. Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. That is the point we stand at. We can choose convenience and vote for Kerry and perpetuate the cycle, or we can take a stand and say, No, we will vote our conscience no matter what - Even when faced with the prospect of 4 more years of unemployment, eroded civil liberties, and war, we won't settle for the lesser of 2 evils. At some point the Democratic party will have to wake up and realize they must present DEMOCRATIC candidates who represent the people. In some ways I think 4 more years of Bush is exactly what this country needs. Until average Americans are taken out of their comfort zone, until average people lose jobs, lose liberty, and lose convenience, there will never be any mass motivation for change.

At some point we have to sacrifice our little security blanket, and take our chances - Its never going to be easy but at some point we have to be ready to make some sacrifices. I'll be voting my conscience in the next election. Maintaining the status quo will never fix things, and at this point I'm willing to bite the bullet in the hope that there is a chance that my children will have a better world.

[Elginoid]

97. I thought that 4 years of bush would have been enough...

apparently not.

someday we'll learn.

[leesa]

80. Then I don't stand by Kerry. If these oil-stealing thugs

get their war on that's all that matters. So, knowing that their case was built on lies, he would still vote for it. Brilliant! Let's invade Venezuela next!

[Larkspur]

86. Maybe we need Venezuela to invade us

to get rid of the fascists in Washington

[denverbill]

82. Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

I wonder who the Democrats are going to run for President in 2008? Hopefully, it will be someone even more right-wing than Kerry so we can win the some independents and not give the voters a real choice.

[Libs Bite Back]

84. There is more than one issue in this election

I cannot believe the people in this discussion who are considering not voting because of this one statement. Are you all just one issue voters? What about the possibly two supreme court nominees who could overturn roe v. wade? What about stem cell research, separation of church and state, social security privatization, gun control, affirmative action, retirement policy, outsourcing, etc,etc,etc. Yes it we all wish J.K. was more to the left, but lets get him elected and then work to push him and the party leftwards. The perfect candidate you will never have unless you move to the Netherlands. As I tell my friends I don't blame Nader for running I blame the people who vote for him I call them impractical pie in the sky liberals.
http://liberalsbiteback.com

[denverbill]

85. Or, we could vote for Bush, and push HIM to the left.

Hell, at least if Shrub is reelected, he'll take all the blame for Iraq, rather than letting Kerry horn in on it.

Kerry is little different from Bush on gun control or outsourcing. They agree on immigration, Venezuala, Cuba, and Israel. Republicans need abortion as a wedge issue, so I doubt they will ever seriously try to outlaw it.

9-11 and the Iraq war are the defining issues of the last 4 years. Iraq represented a sea change in American foreign policy. We used to believe that war was a tool of last resort. We used to believe in a 'no first strike' rule. Bush and PNAC threw that all away, choosing instead to use American military might to attempt to bash the world into conformity with our vision of how it should look.

Kerry agrees with Bush and PNAC. The war was justified even though Iraq was no threat to the US and had no WMD. The war was justified even though tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 1000 Americans have died. The war was justified even though it is turning more ordinary people into martyrs every day.

[ASaneGuy]

91. I may not vote for Kerry

if he keeps making this kind of statements. The whole vote was based
on Iraq's WMD. So now Kerry says even if there's no WMD he'd still
vote for war. Then he's saying that it's ok for him to use WMD as
a pretense for war. Almost 1000 US soldiers have died. For what? To
get rid of Saddam? Why do we want to get rid of Saddam if he didn't
have WMD and was not linked to 911? Did Saddam threatend US security
if he didn't have WMD? Why should US soldiers die if no national
security is involved? So now Kerry only has problem with the conduct
of the war. If this reflects Kerry's belief, then he should
not have protested the Vietnam war itself, he should have urged the
Nixon administration to make better plans to use full force to
deal with Vietnam.

I'm becoming to be convinced that I should support Ralph Nader. He
was right when he said the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
I may vote for Nader or not vote at all. I don't think Kerry deserves
my vote. I know this means we may have four more years of Bush. But
if we have to pay a price to get honest candidates like Dean, enduring
four more years of Bush is not too high.

[Turbo]

129. Hate to say it, but...

I feel the same way after today.

Man, Kerry should just change the subject as fast as possible.

What a bummer.

[arlib]

103. Dead.

Do you know anyone who has had a son or daughter killed in the war? Ask them how they feel about this "one issue".

[LisaL]

105. Bush had started the war

Bush had started the war, not Kerry.
Obviously, Bushes supporters don't care what he does, they will still vote for him.

[arlib]

107. Great reasoning...

Your point is what? That we should also just vote for Kerry no matter what he does or thinks?

[LisaL]

115. YES

YES, because we have no alternative.
Do you have an alternative?
Just let Bush stay for 4 more years?
I sure don't think so.
Think about it as selecting lesser of 2 evils.

[arlib]

118. Losing strategy

The problem is that this is a losing gambit. Who does he think he's appealing to with this? Republicans? As you correctly said, Republicans will vote for Bush no matter what so it's really difficult to see what he's trying to accomplish. The undecided voter? Recent poll after poll shows that they think it was a mistake to invade, not by a huge margin, but a plurality nonetheless. So it's tough to make a case there... All this will do is alienate a portion of the Democratic vote and ensure he loses the election. Pathetic.

[nysooner]

89. authority is the key word

All that resolution did was give the president the authority to use force. There was no vote on invasion up or down. That vote was never cast. You could argue that Kerry "knew" the Bushies wanted war and should have voted against it, but all of this is hypothetical.

When Kerry says he would have voted to give the president the "authority" necessary to use force even knowing what he knows now, it's not the same as voting for the war.

I may disagree with the statement and/or the position and still know that Kerry will be a better president than the current occupant.

Don't play into the repubs hands. They're trying to splinter the unity of the party with this hypothetical. Focus on what Kerry asked Bush. That's what's real. Whatever your position, we're there now. Who is going to get us out with a "win"? I think you all know the answer is Kerry.

[georgewash]

92. Maybe I"m just arguing semantics

But when you say.... "Who is going to get us out with a "win"? I think you all know the answer is Kerry" - First thing that comes to mind is no one is going to get us out with a win, we've already lost that battle...Its just a question of how badly we lose. Too bad we can't ask the 1000 soldiers who have already died for their opinion in the matter.

Anybody in their right mind knew when the vote was taken that 1) Bush wanted to go to war, and 2) The whole reason for getting the authority to go to war, was, in fact, so he could go to war...

To say now, that voting for the authority to go to war isn't the same as voting to go to war, is really, really searching for a justification. What ever happened to accountability

[nysooner]

104. If we can't "win"

or if we've already lost as you submit georgewash, then why remain at all? Is that the point? Should we leave Iraq to chaos and civil war?
That's a losing position with most Americans.

Going back through "Plan of Attack" by Woodward, I see on pg. 167 that the WH didn't think they needed to go to Congress for the authority, but wanted the political cover and they wanted the leverage at the U.N.

Go to page 430 and you'll see Rove saying that they would try to paint Kerry as wishy-washy on the war.

Now, it's all they have left.

Do you believe that President Kerry could turn the tide and make this ill-advised war a victory? I do.

I think what is happening on this thread is exactly why Bush posed the question.

Their whole game plan is to divide the party on Iraq and try to cast Kerry as a flip-flopper. It's more important for undecideds to see Kerry as decisive and consistent. If you all stay home, Bush wins. If you vote for Nader, Bush wins. But here's the truth. No matter who wins, we're in Iraq.

So, who do you want making decisions going forward? For me it's easy. I want a guy with fresh ideas, credibility and experience in combat. That man is Kerry.

[hansolsen]

137. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and would only add that one of things I

despise about S.hrub the most, is that he never admits a mistake.

Apparently Kerry admires that trait.

[MARALE]

101. I Agree!!!

:hi:

[William Bloode]

90. If it was not for the fact i hate.....

* so much this would very much tempt me to stay home. That remark/statement was a huge mistake for folks like me who are and always have been against the war.

I mean sure i'm getting a little change, but it feels like all the abuse i have taken(some from Dem's)for being against the the war from the beginning, has come to naught.

And i never wanted Kerry to begin with, i would have been much happier with Dean Or Kuccinich, but oh well....

[LSK]

94. REMINDER -> ABB!!!!

Do not forget what is at stake in this election. There are ONLY 2 REAL candidates.

Its either Bush or Kerry plain and simple. If you dont support Kerrys stance on Iraq, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER ISSUES.

- deficits
- gay rights
- abortion
- stem cell research
- oil independence
- environment
- patriot act
- job outsourcing
- foreign relations
- economy
- taxes
- future wars???
- PNAC

I am as dissappointed in Kerrys stance on Iraq just like a lot of people. But I realize that Iraq is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.

If Kerry doesnt get in office WE ARE IN REALLY BIG TROUBLE.

[Elginoid]

98. Fuck. That.

Kerry has LOST my vote.

I will NOT vote for him.

[LisaL]

106. Well

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Elginoid]

119. I go to the polls to vote FOR someone...

not against someone.

And as a vasectomized married white male with no children and plenty of equity, i don't feel a second term by the lil' dictator will be as hard on me as it will on a lot of others...

maybe they should be a little more concerned about their chosen representative turning off potential voters as much as he does me.

[MirrorAshes]

136. What a selfish response.

You know this issue is not just as simple as this one quote from Kerry, which is already being mischaracterized.

[el_chalupa]

117. my 2 cents

My analysis of these issues and Kerry's positions:

- deficits

If Kerry supports the war, he will keep our troops there. He is absolutely full of crap if he thinks that other nations will contribute more than a handful of troops more than what they already contribute. Russia said would absolutely not send troops. Besides, they are occupied with Chechnya as it is. France said from the beginning they would not send troops under any circumstances. It would be political suicide for Chirac to change his mind on that, Kerry or no Kerry. Germany said they cannot afford to send any more troops beyond their commitments to Afghanistan, even if they wanted to. China??? HA!!! The interim Iraqi government has already stated they would not accept troops from neighboring countries, even if offered. Muslim nations are not very enthusiastic about contributing. This means it will continue to be an American endeavor, paid for by American taxpayers. This will NOT reduce the deficit.

- gay rights

He has openly said he opposes gay marriage. That's the #1 issue for the gay community.

- abortion

Kerry (or was it Edwards?) said he believes life begins at conception. Not a good philosophy if you want to protect abortion rights. Besides, it's not like Bush or any other republican will ever be able to overturn it. It's ingrained in our society and we would never accept Roe V Wade being overturned. Bush can't touch it.

- stem cell research

The only real difference. Bush opposes additional federal funding for stem cell research until the science advances. Kerry does not. Beyond that, I'm ill informed.

- oil independence

Again, Kerry is a joke. He's about 1% better than Bush on this issue, but he hasn't offered anything solid or practical on this issue that I know of. I've only heard talk, nothing of substance.

- environment

Does anybody know any significant environmental issue that Kerry has tackled??? I know of nothing. Again, more talk as far as I know.

- patriot act

I might be wrong here, but I think Kerry supported the Patriot act, then began to oppose it when things got politically dicey. Who knows what he really thinks about it or what he will do???

- job outsourcing

He claims to oppose outsourcing but I've heard reports about Heinz having substantial jobs overseas. Besides, in Economics classes I've taken, it's not at all clear that outsourcing is always a bad thing, depending on several variables. In our economy today, with so much business being sent overseas and international economies being intertwined, I cannot see how Kerry can do a damn thing to influence this. Vast quantities of goods are manufactured in other nations. If Kerry penalizes this, it will have a severe impact on our economy, and I can't see how economic principles can apply to make it an overall benefit. Prices will rise, buying power will decrease, dollar value will fall, which impacts profits and jobs. I think Kerry is all talk on this issue.

- foreign relations

European nations may be more cuddly toward us with Kerry in office, but I cannot see how they would deal with us any differently. They won't help in Iraq no matter what. They won't hate us any less, as anti-Americanism is just that. It's largely cultural, less political. It's not anti-Bushism (a different phenomenon in itself). European (and other) nations will still toss out the same epithets such as "American arrogance", "American imperialism", etc. American stereotypes will persist. We will still be perceived culturally as fat, lazy, greedy, rich, racist, oil-hungry, war-mongering, ignorant, arrogant, etc. Fill in the blank: "You ______ Americans. You're all alike." This won't change under Kerry. It's much deeper than what president we have in office. No flames from European members please. I'm speaking in a broad sense. I know the refrain "I don't hate Americans, just American policies".

- economy

Again, I don't believe Kerry will have much impact here. He will be locked into certain expenditures (Iraq war, etc). I don't buy it when presidents say they created ##### jobs. We are a capitalistic society. Unless you work for the government, the government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. The FED will still control interest rates and the money supply. All Kerry can do is affect taxes and spending. If Kerry wants to pass spending cuts/increases or tax cuts/increases, he will have to have it pass a likely republican legislature. Who knows how that will turn out??? Republicans certainly won't cooperate with him. In all likelihood, he won't change many policies, and the health of the economy will continue to be influenced by market forces, as it nearly almost always is.

- taxes

He already said he supports the Bush tax cut. He does want to roll back the cut for the top 2% of wage earners (probably 200k and above). That will pay for some things, but it doesn't take into account those of us who live in extremely expensive areas. Those of us who like in the bay area, Los Angeles, NY, know how expensive it is to live there. 200k/yr in these areas will get you a comfortable living but by no means is it equivalent to making 200,000 in someplace like Eugene, OR (and no I've never been there, I'm just guessing it's a low cost of living). I haven't seen any data that indicates that these increases/rollbacks on the top 2% will be enough to pay for existing expenses, new proposals, (health care, etc) and still reduce the deficit.

- future wars???

I have no doubt that Kerry would wage future wars. He's done an about face on his support for the war because he wants the OFFICE of the president to have the authority to launch pre-emptive wars. He came out a few weeks ago and said he supports the doctrine of pre-emption. He whines about "how" Bush went to war, but he NEVER opposes the ACT of war itself. He criticizes "Bush's" war, but probably can't wait to wage "Kerry's" war. He loves bashing Bush for not being tougher on Saudi Arabia and North Korea. He's either all talk or he will move on to another war before the 2nd year of his term.

- PNAC

I'm a fairly recent and infrequent lurker, so I'm not really familiar with that. I did a quick google search but there's too much to read. I'll let others comment on this.


The moral of the story as I see it:

Kerry is is nearly impossible to nail down on the issues, but he is basically Bush lite, depending on which way the political winds are blowing and the direction of the polls. Some days he panders to the far left, some days he panders to the far right. Since the convention, he's been trying to portray himself as a moderate. He still might run to the right of Bush by the time the election rolls around. If you want a principled candidate, vote Nader or Bush. Vote Kerry if you are a slightly left-leaning moderate who doesn't follow politics or are happy with the current state of affairs. If you are farther to the left that that, then you're screwed. Your boat left with Dean, Kuccinich, Sharpton, ABB and "electability". Nader is an option as a protest vote, but you will get railed by fellow democrats for voting Nader.

Pick one:

__ BUSH
__ BUSH LITE
__ NADER (get a spine and cover your ears from the yelling)

Feels good to vote, doesn't it?

[demoman123]

95. Why did Kerry say that?

He didn't need to say what he "would have done if...."

All he needed to say was that he voted for the war because he thought there were WMD's, and the President was wrong about this, so Bush screwed up.

[whosinpower]

99. So why DID the US go to war against Iraq anyways?

I mean, maybe Kerry and Bush know something we don't. REGARDLESS, we have not been trully informed as to the reasoning. At first we were told of a threat by WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. That reason fell flatly on its face. Then we were told that Saddam aided and abetted Al Quaeda. That reason fell flat on its face.

So, somewhere in the mix of bringing democracy into the middle east (isn't it there already with Israel and Turkey?????) we have been sideswiped into falling into a war campaign FOR WHAT???? Continued access and control over middle east oil??????? WHAT? This is what infuriates me. There has been allot of blood spilled over this. And, there has been allot of money spent on this crusade. I cannot in good faith, reconcile the costs of this war compared to the benefits...I have not seen any benefits thus far. The guy in power right now is just as brutal and ruthless as Saddam was. We are going around in circles.....

[Lorien]

108. Who the hell does he think

he's appealing to? A LOT of republicans are unhappy about the Iraq situation and are saying it was a mistake, and the vast majority of Democrats were against the invasion from the beginning. So with this idiotic statement Kerry has 1.) alienated his base so much so that many will probably stay home election day, and 2.) lost the possibility of gaining millions of moderate repug voters who figure they'll vote for Bush* because there's not a lot of difference and at least he's a real republican.

If his statement had been different, I think I could have convinced my RW mom to vote for him. I don't know how I'll convince her now. :-(

[ima_sinnic]

110. I don't think he cares WHO he's supposed to be appealing to

... like his rival The Chimp in Chief I guess he believes that illegally, unethically and greedily waging war on defenseless sovereign nations is a cool thing to do.

[ima_sinnic]

109. ordinary, unimaginative, uninspiring --

from antiwar activist to pro-war presidential candidate--sell out much?

it does give one pause, doesn't it? I mean, I was there in 1968 protesting the war and haven't changed my mind after all these years. there are some who say he calculated every action and bragged back then that he was going to be president. I guess he figured leading vets against the war would look good on his resume or something.

vote?
if I get around to it.
actually, I think I have to give the dog a bath or something that day.

[LisaL]

111. dog bath

You might as well wash Bushes dog.

[ima_sinnic]

112. whatever

neither one of them is my candidate.
they can slug it out as to whose "pre-emptive policy" is better. I can't tell one warmonger from another.

[Lorien]

134. I'll still be voting for this

fool. He's not the moron Bush* is, and his environmental and economic policies are far better (I don't want to be like a one issue Freeper). But my God, he sure is a piss poor candidate! I expect he'll lose by a pretty wide margin at this rate. All those people that say "well, that's not what he really meant; you have to STUDY his record" Yeah, right-exactly how many voters will be doing that? If you can't state his position on anything in a 9 second sound bite, then the MTV generation will never know what it is!

And as for those people who say "it's lose lose for Kerry; if he says his vote was right, then he loses the anti war (most of those on the left) vote, if he says his vote was wrong, he'll lose those that rally around the flag ( the pro-war bedwetters; the far right-who will vote for Bush anyway. Moderate republicans have had enough of this Iraq nonsense and are pissed about the cost). It's a losing argument, IMO.

[nysooner]

113. When was Kerry ever

the "anti-war" candidate in THIS election? Can someone here show me a quote, a statement or other commitment that he OPPOSED the war?

I really want to know where this is coming from. Maybe I missed it.

Give me a position or a statement, not a feeling...

As far as I know, Kerry has never opposed this war, only the way in which it was begun and conducted. He says it 47 times a day!

Weren't you listening?

[ima_sinnic]

114. he never was and that's why I never supported him from the start

--but back in the 60s he made a big show of opposing another quagmire war. as someone above says, let him be the one to send the last soldier to die in Iraq. hypocrite.

[Z-E-R-0]

116. nysooner

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes.

Hardball, Jan. 6, 2004.

[Zhade]

125. Hmmm. Not quite.

Here's the actual, full quote:

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought...Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.

Not an anti-war candidate, despite the fact that he SHOULD be. Apparently, he believes b*sh should have taken us to war, just in a different way.

[nysooner]

141. thanks for the full quote

I'm still looking for someone to show me a quote that comes from Kerry that says, "I am against this war in Iraq."

I don't think you'll find it.

Anyone who thinks Kerry is our nominee because he was the anti-war candidate needs to get real with themselves.

Kerry has staked out his position:

“It's time for the president to stop asking questions and to start giving the American people some answers.

“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 has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, 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.”

Anyone here who thinks we'd be in Iraq at all if Kerry were President in 2002, is off base as well. Kerry would never have gone there. This is Bush's war. They are trying to make it about Kerry, but it isn't. It's about Bush's leadership. Don't make the mistake of letting the Bush people decide it's about Kerry.

[Zhade]

142. Considering Kerry's own advisor thinks he'd have gone into Iraq...

...I'd say you're wrong.

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

So, it's not just us anti-war progressives saying it. Kerry's own people are saying he'd have gone to war - so you can't pin it 100% on b*sh, no matter how you spin it (and how much I wish it were true).

[MARALE]

120. Randi Rodes

She talked on this today. Kerry would have signed that bill, but the bill was not a "go to war now" bill. It said * had authority to use force after we let the inspectors back in, got a second vote from the UN and others. This is not a simple question and do not jump to conclusions from one snippet from a simple question.

[LisaL]

122. Good point

Good point.

[Kierkegaard]

123. School of fish...

I've watched the posting here and have participated sporadically over the last couple of weeks and I must say that I am sorely dissapointed by what I've been reading here today. I've seen staunch, aggressive support for Kerry spreading like wild fire, deep committment to removing the cancer that is eating away our government and because of one misconstrued sentence, one that doesn't remotely have the meaning that it's being given, there are a bunch of you who are ready to bag our opportunity to take out the trash in November.

No, Kerry isn't perfect. Far from it. Even if he was perfect, he would not be to some people's taste. That's life. But what he IS, is our last best hope at righting all the crappy mistakes of a failed Presidency. If we sign off on another 4 years, we're giving carte blanche to continue 'business as usual.' Who knows what other brilliant ideas they will have in store for us? I, for one, do NOT want to find out.

Are the efforts to smear our guy creeping into your collective conscience?

[LisaL]

124. YEP, it's working

YEP, looks like it working on some people.
You are not happy with Kerry?
I bet Bush is pretty happy about that.
Nobody is perfect, but Bush is about as far from perfect as it can get.
I don't want to find out what Bush is going to do to this country for 4 more years.

[Zhade]

128. You know, it's quite possible to hate b*sh and NOT like Kerry.

I, for one, don't like Kerry for many reasons: his pro-war stance, his views on Cuba and Venezuela, his laughable belief that other countries will jump into the quagmire that is Iraq-Nam, the people he has advising him - basically, for his foreign policies.

Being bi, I'm not thrilled with his opposition to gay marriage, but no one's going to die over that like they will by his unwillingness to do the right thing in Iraq.

I might vote in November (I'm in California, no haven of Republicanism, our "governor" aside). If I do, you can rest assured it will be against b*sh, not for Kerry.

[Lorien]

135. A lot of us feel that way

It's voting for the lesser of two evils. This isn't a "yer with us or yer against us" situation.

[el_chalupa]

127. What do you want from a candidate?

It all boils down to the policy, not the person. If Bush were to adopt 100% of the policies you advocate, would you still oppose him? If Kerry were to adopt 100% of the policies you oppose, would you still support him? Would you feel better if Kerry is elected but his policies do not waver from Bush's policies? Would you feel like you made a difference, made a change?

It doesn't matter what label a politician gives him/herself. There might be a (D) or (R) next to his/her name, but it's the policy positions that matter, not the party label. That's why people are upset. Many feel that Kerry is adopting policies that they absolutely oppose, so why support him? If his policies and Bush's policies are 100% similar, what difference does it make who you support?

Who would you vote for if Kerry ran to the right of Bush and Bush ran to the left of Kerry? How stuck on labels are you? How manipulative can political rhetoric get? Would you vote for a 3rd party candidate who says what he or she believes and does not engage in political masquerading?

Food for thought!

[Kierkegaard]

131. Labels are irrelevant, but tendencies cannot be overlooked

If Bush would promise to adopt 100% of the policies that encompass the needs of the majority, I wouldn't believe for a minute that he would institute them. Historically speaking, I just don't believe he is trustworthy. Kerry opposes much of what I despise about the current administration, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not willing to wait another 4 years for someone to at least attempt to right the ship.

We all know that war is not pretty. In my opinion, it was not justified in this case, but this election is bigger than a single issue, or even several issues. The policies of this administration and those proposed by Kerry are not even close to 100% similar. Hence my alarm at the bailing out of the boat because of a pinhole.

Unfortunately, EVERY candidate has to engage in political masquerading if they have any hope of being elected. Cynical, yes, but I think that's largely true. Even if they do exhibit tremendous ideals, forthright honesty and utmost integrity, it is meaningless unless they are electable. Show me a candidate for any office that isn't telling people what they want to hear, and I'll show you an out of work politician. I don't like it any more than most 'thinking' people do, but those are the methods of politics that have been used successfully over the last several decades. Pick the candidate who is likely to do the most GOOD, not the one who comes down on the side of a couple issues you are passionate about. America is at stake, not just a few select individuals.

[LisaL]

132. IF Bush was Kerry, but Kerry was Bush.

If Bush was Kerry, but Kerry was Bush, would you vote for Bush or Kerry?
Hmm?
:crazy:

[hansolsen]

143. This old Dean supporter and anti war activist will vote for Kerry - once

But I will cast that vote with deep reluctance and little hope that he will be a great president. Today's statment and accompanying statments by surrogats are enough to gag a yak.

Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is all head and no heart; all logic and no passion, and devoid of soul. If this is all Kerry brings to the debates, Shrub will wipe the floor with him.

And this is important to me, not just for this election, but because I believe we are in a long term war for the soul of the Democratic Party, and from where I sit, John Kerry has no soul.

I cannot vote for Bush, and I will not sit home on election night. Against my better judgement, I will vote for the lesser of two evils one final time, but I swear if Kerry governs the way he campaigns, I will do everything in my power to drive him from office.

I will say this: If Kerry wins with my support in November, I will not celebrate. I'll go home, climb a tall tree, and watch Washington like a hawk. Kerry's blunders will be our blunders then. If Bush wins even with all I do to vote him out of office, I will not despair -- four more years of Shrub may doom the Republicans for 50 years.

To all the DUers who just love John Kerry, and were on his band wagon from the beginning -- I'll bet three fourths of you supported the war, bought the WMD bullshit, and were happy to go along for the ride all the way to toppling Saddam's statue. Tell me I'm wrong.

[Domitan]

144. Bang on!

I will say this: If Kerry wins with my support in November, I will not celebrate. I'll go home, climb a tall tree, and watch Washington like a hawk. Kerry's blunders will be our blunders then.

Do what we have to do, but celebrations of Kerry's victory will be premature as he will have to prove himself during his term.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

145. Close (with edits)

"This old Dean supporter and anti war activist will vote for Kerry..."

But I will cast that vote with deep reluctance and a little hope that he will be a great president. Today's statment and accompanying statments by surrogats are enough to gag a yak.

Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is all head and no heart; all logic and no passion, and devoid of soul...

And this is important to me, not just for this election, but because I believe we are in a long term war for the soul of the Democratic Party, and from where I sit, John Kerry has no soul.

I cannot vote for Bush, and I will not sit home on election night. Against my better judgement, I will vote for the lesser of two evils one final time, but I swear if Kerry governs the way he campaigns, I will do everything in my power to drive him from office.

I will say this: If Kerry wins with my support in November, I will not celebrate. I'll go home, climb a tall tree, and watch Washington like a hawk. Kerry's blunders will be our blunders then. I will despair.

To all the DUers who just love John Kerry, and were on his band wagon from the beginning -- Where are you?

[Charlie Brown]

146. Dean supported Afghanistan, did he not?

and even Kucinich voted to use force that time around, if I'm not mistaken. If you're an "anti-war activist" surely your principles were equally challenged in supporting Dean.

[hansolsen]

154. I'm no pacifist, and even the most hardened military hawk can be against

this war. I'm not against all wars. My father was a WWII combat veteran, and I admire his service to the country. There is such a thing as a just war. But the war in Iraq is a war of agression, and is unjust.

It is a war we cannot win. It was lost the day it was launched on a pack of lies.

I was an anti-war activist in the Vietnam era, and again now for Iraq. I supported the war in Aphganistan and Gulf War I, and thus was in accord with Howard Dean.

[Charlie Brown]

157. "Im not against all wars"

then you're not "anti-war." Many politicians go through the motions of choosing wars to support/not support, so they can be either a peace or strong military advocate when it suits them. All the Democratic candidates seem to have played this game. It's a lot more difficult to oppose the use of force on principle. How is your support for our presence in Afganistan any different than Kerry's support for the Iraq war.

[hansolsen]

162. You're right, I'm not anti war; but I am an antiwar activist for this war

I'll grant you the semantic victory if you insist on having it.

As for Aphghanistan, I see that as a just war, because I see that as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden hiding among the Taliban, having attacked us first on 9/11. This was an act of self preservation when under attack, just as Pearl Harbor launched WWII.

I would never take the military option off the table, any more than unilaterally taking the knights off the table entering a chess match. War has its place, and a strong defense is the surest deterent to war.

I stand with Teddy R -- "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Bush yells a lot, flips the bird to the whole world, and demonstrates the inherent weakness of the military option when facing determined opposition.

[Uzybone]

152. Oooooh Im scared

stop threatening people with your votes. Vote for Bush, write in Dean or vote for Nader if you want.

Youll hold Kerry feet to the fire if he wins? Wow! Guess what this anti war, never believed in WMDs, liberal, Kerry supporter is going to do? The same fucking thing.


This holier than thou bullshit has been old since the primaries. IWR is not the only issue on the table. Open your eyes and maybe youll see that.

[hansolsen]

155. Uzy -- easy there -- I said I will vote for kerry

I'm simply asking that Dems in general and DU bloggers in particular hold Kerry to a high standard on issues of war and peace in the middle east.

I'm simply advocating we do for John Kerry, what I would hope conservative Republicans would do on their side of the fence -- raise holy hell when Shrub goes off the reservation and drags the country through the mud. Wouldn't you welcome some Repubs coming out saying they can't support Shrub's continued policy in Iraq? Or his policy on Israel and the settlements and the fence -- the same one Kerry is supporting?

What's the use of being active in politics if we just roll over and applaud every thing our guy does, right or wrong? I can stay home and do that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

156. Shut up! Shut up!

Turn off his mic!

[Darranar]

147. So, KNOWING that the "case" for war was a pack of lies...

he STILL would have voted for it?

[Uzybone]

148. Another holier than thou circle jerk thread

the cut-of-nose-to-spite-face Deanie faction, Naderites and others who do not want to see a Democrat in the whitehouse all come once again to threaten us with thier votes. Ho hum.


Did anyone think that in the middle of a successful campaign that Kerry would suddenly do a 180 on Iraq???? Stupid.

[dawgman]

149. Why would I vote for the fucker? He doesn't represent me or my

values. He is just another stupidly wealthy white man intent on maintaining the status quo. Fuck him and quit threatening me with four more years of Bush. If you are so in love with Kerry four more of Bush probably wouldn't be that far from your comfort zone.

[Uzybone]

150. Yep Bush and Kerry are the same

ridiculous. But keep on believing that. Anyone who buys that canard has a lot of learning to do.

[dawgman]

151. KErry might have a slightly better environmental policy, and he

pays lip service to health care, but aside from that where exactly are the significant differences? Free trade? corporate welfare? (once again lip service is paid but I fail to see where he really wants to make changes) Foreign policy? (he says he'll bring other countries on board with Iraq, but continues to spout american empire bullshit. He also is more concerned with fighting the symptom of terrorism rather than the disease of the disaster that US foreign policy has been for 100 years and especially for the last 60.)

Say what you will but there is very little real difference other than bullshit campaign rhetoric.

[Uzybone]

153. Slightly better on the environment?

I beg to disagree. Kerry is the most green friendly Senator in the Congress. Far better than Bush. health care? How about Kerry has a plan to expand it to all and Bush does not. You may call it lip service, but I think he has a commitment on that issue and will do what he can (GOP controlled congress and whorish American media permitting) to address that problem.

Unless the American people en masse begin to reject NAFTA...its not going anywhere. No chance a serious candidate will speak against that issue and hope to be elected.

I think there is a lot of difference. Enough so that I will swallow my disgust at Kerry's IWR vote and vote to remove the actual criminal mind who sent us there from office before he does anymore damage.

[hansolsen]

159. Maybe a 10 point drop in the polls is what this candidate needs right now

If Kerry takes this position into the debates, Shrub will wipe the mat with him. Kerry is supposed to be great under pressure -- maybe he needs that pressure right now.

[hansolsen]

158. How about coming up with a plan for Iraq that has a chance of working?

His goal of internationalizing the military operation in Iraq will be Kerry's first broken promise of the new administration.

Are you going to follow him around with a broom and dustpan and pick up the pieces?

Or will you forget about politics the day Kerry is elected?

[greenohio]

167. I don't think thats fair.

There are many people like me who are beginning to struggle with what to do with this race. I voted for Gore in 2000 even though my heart was with Nader. In the end, I had thrown my vote away because Gore didn't become president anyway. Up until this point I was voting for Kerry. Even though, once again my heart is with Nader. But now I struggle with why?

1)On the environment: Kerry voted against the Kyoto treaty, the most important treaty regarding the environment.
2)On jobs: he voted for NAFTA.
3)His deficit plan is identical to Bush's
4)He supports the Israeli assassinations and the Sharon plan
5)He is against gay marriage.
6)He says he believes life begins at conception (a belief that if spreads will undermine women's reproductive rights.)
7)Kerry would still vote to authorize THIS president to invade Iraq knowing that there are no WMDs.

How many elections must I vote for someone who opposes my beliefs? I want to vote for Kerry because I cannot take another four years of Bush. On the other hand, if Kerry gets elected, a Republican congress will block his progressive ideas anyway. Maybe this time I should vote my heart and send a signal we need a real choice.

[wicket]

164. kick!

:kick: