Madison Captial Times: Bush is Wrong, Kerry is Wrong

[Larkspur]

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

<SNIP>
Unfortunately, Democratic candidate John Kerry was almost as foolish in his response to the president's know-nothing rant.

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.

Kerry should pay attention to a point made by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Feingold says that Democrats make a mistake by assuming that so-called "swing" voters are centrists who support the war. A lot of undecided voters, Feingold suggests, are Americans who believe this war is a terrible mistake and who want a leader who recognizes that fact and will bring it to an end.
<SNIP>
This editorial sums up nicely my view of Kerry's view of his IWR vote and the Iraqi war.

[JuniorPlankton]

1. Yep n/t

[Mojambo]

2. I agree with what's written here

Except that those anti-war voters are not going to vote for Bush under any circumstances. So Kerry risks absolutely nothing by playing it the way he has and he gives himself a shot at the centrist voters who aren't anti-war.

I don't like it any better than anyone else but it's the only political play.

[Jokinomx]

3. I think your right Mojambo....

Kerry would have to stumble and fall flat on his face for me not to vote for him.... I still wouldn't vote for * though...I would end up voting for a third party. Anyway... great insight and post.


:dem:

[HereSince1628]

4. It's about neutralizing an issue, not swing votes

For me, I'd like to vote for a difference, the war was a mistake. Many feared that at the onset, many more have come to believe it.

It seems odd that whole state of New York seems to _get_ that, giving Kerry his perhaps his greatest lead in any(?)state poll, and his campaign is looking to "neutralize" rather than "play" the issue.

Triangles are just like cockroaches...when you see either there are thousands more of the same hiding. And if this campaign turns into another DLC "ME TOO Fest" I am gonna cry.

[Mojambo]

5. If it were gonna be a "me too fest"

It would have shaped up that way by this point. It hasn't and Kerry has (IMO) distinguished himself as a drastically different option than Bush despite the Iraq position.

A "me too" party would have nominated Lieberman. A principled, anti-war party would have nominated Howard Dean. A winning democratic party nominated John Kerry.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's a bit distasteful to have our nominee playing it this way. I wish the political landscape in America allowed for a different position. I don't think it does.

[HereSince1628]

6. I see triangles...just like some see ghosts...and they are just as

scary.

Without triangles, I think some Libertarians would be swayed with a position against the war party.

A little "chess playing" in campaigns is expected, but, as a Dean supporter, I am sad the war issue has fallen so soon. If the rest of the mistakes made in the war on terror get compromised similarly, and they seem set up to be, saddness will become profound disappointment.

Can we expect something better to hold the line on the "PATRIOT Act?"...

On edit:

the phrase "A winning democratic party nominated John Kerry."

IS FRIGGIN DLC!!!!!!

On another edit: You might contemplate that Wisconsin is one of those cursed swing states, and the Madison area is perhaps the most sensitive to democratic ideals in the state. Should the campaign simply ignore a major paper in a swing state that says, your position is wrong to satisfy folks here?

[Upfront]

8. Just One thing

Howard Dean would not have made that statement.

[Upfront]

7. Me to.

Kerry has got it wrong. I hope it won't cause us to lose this election.

[Martin Eden]

9. Why did Bush invade Iraq?

(I posted this on another board in response to someone who argued the invasion was the right thing to do because of Saddam's atrocities against his own people; I mention John Kerry at the end of the post)

Why did Bush invade Iraq?

Was it to save the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein?

If so, then that's what he should have told the American people, and not the pack of lies about WMDs and an alliance with al Qaeda.

Our deomocracy is supposed to operate on the basis of Informed consent, but we were deliberately misinformed by this administration about a decision to take our nation to war.

But who really believes Bush invaded Iraq for the welfare of the Iraqi people?

I know the theory put forth as the rationale -- that by installing free democracies we can transform the Middle East. But that's only part of the neoconservative agenda. They also seek permanent military bases in the Persian Gulf for exerting U.S. power and a measure of control over the world oil market. Under the occupational authority of Paul Bremer, the U.S. established laws and contracts favoring U.S. companies, effectively placing large sectors of the Iraqi economy under U.S. control.

Sure, the Iraqi people were "liberated" from Saddam Hussein, but all that blood and treasure isn't being spent for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It is being spent to enhance American power and to enrich corporations friendly to Geroge W. Bush. Undoubtedly, Bush and his neoconservative coterie believe they are doing what's best for the long term interests of the United States.

Most of the rest of the world also believes Bush is motivated by U.S. interests, but most of the world also believes those interests don't necessarily coincide with their interests or the interests of the Iraqi people. They see it as imperialism, which is essentially the definition of invading a soverign nation, occupying it militarily, appointing a government dependent on the invading power for its continued existence, gaining control of its economy, and building permanent military bases.

The Iraqi insurgents are not battling us because they "hate freedom" but because they want to be independent of foreign domination. There will be continued violence in Iraq unless there is a substantial change in who calls the shots. Iraq is by no means "sovereign." Prime Minister Alawi has long been connected with the CIA, and the Iraqis who appointed him were appointed by the U.S.

I wish I knew the best way of getting from the present situation to a truly independent Iraqi state that won't degenerate into a rogue regime. But I am certain that unless the U.S. relinquishes military, economic, and political control over Iraq, American troops and uncounted Iraqis will continue to die and the conflict will continue to help the Islamic extremists spread their influence and recruit more terrorists. The basic equation in Iraq must change.

Bush may believe the invasion serves U.S. interests, but I think it serves to perpetuate rather than win the war against terrorism, and is a quagmire from which we will ultimately withdraw after wasting considerably more blood and treasure.

I'm not being defeatist; I'm being realistic -- much more so than the people who believe the new set of lies from their president after the first set of lies were proven false.

I wish I was optimistic that John Kerry has the inclination and a plan to change the basic equation in Iraq, but if does he hasn't shown it so far.