PLEASE! This is driving me batshit!

[Xenus Sister]

If the talking heads and pundits on our side could come up with a quick, pithy way to explain the "voted for the war in Iraq" MYTH, it would MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD!

Instead, they wring their hands and do a yeah, well, yeah, I don't agree with him or other such wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed thing and let the myth be perpetuated.

ARGH! Alterman did it on C-Span. Dean's done it. Everyone does it.

I wrote a letter that wasn't sent because it bounced back at me, but I'm not willing to let it disappear into the ether. It's a bad letter, but it shows where I'm coming from.

==============

I loved your "interview" in the Observer, but you don't help things when you perpetuate a myth like


"...the Kerry campaign is minimizing the difference between him and Bush. Knowing what he knows now, Kerry would still have voted for Bush's war in Iraq?"


I know it might be hard to understand what Kerry meant, but if our side doesn't, how in the world can we expect anyone else to grasp it?


Kerry voted to give Bush the *AUTHORITY* to go to war, not voted to "go to war."


Please, it's easy if you think about it. They are two very different things.


Forget the fact that it's the lying Chimp in office. Kerry believed that *a* President, *the* President, should be given the authority to do what's best for the safety of the country. Chimp was supposed to use that authority as leverage to pressure Saddam Hussein wrt the "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Allow more inspectors, or resigning and fleeing the country or, I don't know, whatever.


Problem is, Kerry (and a lot of other people) TRUSTED the son-of-a-bitch. That was their mistake, and it was a mistake. The vote was not a mistake. If Kerry were in Bush's place, he would have used that power wisely, and not gone throwing bombs around. Ok, Kerry wouldn't have been giving Saddam a second thought in the first place, but that's another story.


The President, though not this president, should have the authority to use the threat of war as leverage in times of crisis.


THIS president couldn't be trusted as far as you could toss him, and misused that authority, lying in the first place that it _was_ a time of crisis wrt Iraq.


I've been a bit convoluted and it could be summed up much easier by someone who has a better way with words, but how is that not perfectly clear?


Kerry did NOT vote to go to war with Iraq.
Kerry voted to give authority to the president to use as leverage.
Bush misused that authority.
Kerry still thinks the president (though not this president) should have that option if need be. By saying that he would still vote that way, he's thinking of the Office of the President, not this particular lying asshole taking up space in the Oval Office via a stolen election.


It's not hard, it's not complicated, it's not "pro-war" and it's not a flip-flop.


Geez, please. Kerry deserves praise and all he gets is crap. It's Bush who deserves the crap for misusing trust and authority for his own gains.


Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

===============


If people would only figure out a way to say the truth quickly and easily, it's a real SLAP IN THE FACE AT BUSH! He can't be trusted, he misused the office of the presidency, he's worse than Nixon...these things can be pounded in by just confronting anyone who pulls out the bullshit "he voted for war and would again" meme. ARGH!

[bvar22]

1. The person that could and should put an end to this is:

Kerry himself!
...and the explanation needs to be kept under one sentence so that the masses can understand.
Edwards might have to do the editing.

[shockingelk]

7. here's my hypothesis

Rove probably has a queue of progressively nastier tricks ready to pull out at any time. He needs to put the nastier ones near the bottom of the stack, as they would take less time to expose.

Knowing this, instead of fighting the attacks as they're doled out, Kerry is choosing to save the bulk of the case until right before election day and deal with whatever may be thrown at him then.

If I'm correct, a short time before the election we'll hear Kerry explain his votes and counter all the slander.

America will collectively go. "Oh. That's a pretty nasty campaign Bush has been waging."

The Bush campaign will then have the choices of:

- releasing a smear in response to smears have been exposed
- sitting back and doing nothing but crossing their fingers

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Kerry voted for the war and said he would do so again.

You can spin to death by saying he was ignorant and is still ignorant but that's what he did.

He gave Bush "authority" to go to war which everyone not willfully ignorant knew that's what Bush intended to do. Kerry has since said that he would STILL give Bush that authority.

It was based on what Kerry thought was political expediency at the time. Now it's come back to bite him in the ass.

He needs to renounce that vote and his support for the occupation if he wants to win this election.

[MGKrebs]

3. I sort of agree.

I would prefer that Kerry say that he wishes we were still in a time when a President could be trusted with that kind of authority, but Bush has destroyed that trust forever.

[kiahzero]

6. You're wrong

The IWR was a threat of force to back up the inspections. Bush didn't need the IWR to go to war - he could have gone to war without any authorization, if he wasn't worried about the 60 day cutoff. Furthermore, the Bush Administration was pushing the idea that they didn't need new authorization to avoid the 60 day cutoff, because there was already an authorization from the first Gulf War. Had it gone to the Supreme Court (an unlikely scenario), they probably would have agreed.

Kerry has since said that waiving the 60 day cutoff was the right decision, because he knew from experience that Iraq would only comply with inspections if it were backed into a corner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. So, where am I wrong.

As you said, "Bush didn't need the IWR to go to war." Assuming that Kerry is as smart as you are, he then knew that his vote was meaningless as far as Bush going to war. Why, then, did he vote for it if it would not affect the outcome?

Kerry still says that he would vote the same. How do you square that with what has happened since?

[kiahzero]

10. I already explained that

Let's look at the post that you theoretically read:

The IWR was a threat of force to back up the inspections.

And

Kerry has since said that waiving the 60 day cutoff was the right decision, because he knew from experience that Iraq would only comply with inspections if it were backed into a corner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. It explains nothing.

Unless Kerry was ignoring what was going on, which he would have to be in a coma to do, then his excuse that the IWR was a "threat of force" is, at best, incredibly naive. What did he think all those troops in Kuwait were doing there, getting tans? What did he think the fleet was doing there?

Again. How do you square your "explaination" with what he just said about still voting for it? The war (if you can call an attack on a prostrate 3rd world country with a ruined military a "war"), did happen, the country is occupied, thousands of Iraqis have died needlessly, as have near 1000 American troops. For what? No WMD. No ties to Al-Queyda. No threat to the USA, or anyone. For nothing.

Surely, he pays some attention to what's happened there and what is still happening there. How can a person with a functioning brain and a modicum of humanity still say that it was the right thing?

[bvar22]

4. Easy One Sentence Response:

bush* LIED TO US!

[Cat Atomic]

5. This isn't accurate, but I think it works as a simple sound byte:

"Yes, Senator Kerry made a mistake by believing the president's WMD claims."

Of course, I think his Iraq invasion vote is inexcusable. But this is an election year, and the alternative is Caligula, so spin away.

[IkeWarnedUs]

8. What still bothers me

I agree that we need to make the distinction that Kerry voted to give the President the authority, not saying yes, let's go to war.

I understand the distinction and agree with your message.

What bothers me is that John Kerry and John Edwards trusted this administration. Why would they do that?

John Kerry knows what these guys are capable of. He lead the Senate investigation into BCCI. I've got a hard drive full of articles in the mainstream media that said the arguments for war were faulty.

And John Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do these guys read foreign press and listen to the whistle blowers at all? Did they hear about the faxes and phone calls we made?

Did they have doubts but thought it would be political suicide to vote against the authorization? I think I would respect them more if this were the reason. Otherwise, I worry if they will be duped by the PNAC remnants that will remain when Bush leaves office.

[Nay]

12. That, of course, is the real problem. Plenty of us out here knew

that Bush's reasons were bullshit, just by keeping up on the news and knowing what Bush and his cronies were like. It's not like the neocons had all sprung from nowhere in 2000. They ALL have track records (and even a PNAC website that proclaims their views) that are accessible to us, and certainly long-time politicians like Kerry and his advisors would know even more dirt than we do.

So why the hell did he vote to give Bush the power? Because he thought it would play well in the hinterlands after the 9/11 hysteriafest. Period.

Again and again, Dems get their tits in a wringer voting for the wrong things for the wrong reasons, ignoring the correct vote in favor of the expedient vote. This vote will trip Kerry up forever. And his refusal to renounce his vote and denounce Bush for starting a war for his own profit will kill him.