I'm so disappointed, I don't feel like voting for anyone anymore.

[Kimber Scott]

John Kerry's affimative response today, to the question of whether he would have still gone to war in Iraq, knowing there were know weapons of mass destruction has taken all the wind out of my sails. I just don't feel like playing this game, anymore.

You can tell me he said it in order to get the "undecided" vote, or to lure some wavering Republicans over to his side of the line, but I'm thinking he can't get enough of them to make up for people like me.

I'm not a pacifist. I spent nine years in the Army. My husband spent 20. My daughter-in-law is in Iraq, right now, and my son just got home from Afghanistan earlier this year. Invading Iraq was wrong. Why won't anybody say so?

I hate George Bush for what he has done to this country and to Iraq. If Kerry wants to be just like him, what's the point?

[AlienGirl]

1. Then write-in Rob Hall!

http://www.TheVoicesTellYouToVote.com

Tucker

[Barret]

2. Link?

Where did he say this?

[Kimber Scott]

8. Here you go.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0809kerry09-ON.html

[zulchzulu]

121. Maybe you missed what he said

Kerry:
"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

Do some research on this. I don't know how many times I've typed in reasons why Kerry would have used much more international support IF we needed to go into Iraq.

[CaTeacher]

3. Well--for one I say so too.

I am also a pacifist--and it hurts me so much that we are at war. I wish that there was something we could do about it. But unfortunately, this country has swung so far to the right, that those of us for peace hardly even have a voice anymore.

[David Dunham]

4. Kerry would have allowed weapons inspections and not invaded.

[regnaD kciN]

128. That doesn't make sense...

Kerry first said that the sole reason that he voted for IWR was to get weapons inspectors in, but if he already knew that there were no such weapons, why would he give Bush war powers just to get inspections of weapons he already knew weren't there? And how can he charge Bush with "misleading the American people into war" when, in fact, what Bush misled the American people about was immaterial, in Kerry's opinion, to the decision that we should go to war anyway?

:wtf:

Unfortunately, he's now changed his explanation once again, and now says that the only thing he would have done differently was to "have a plan to win the peace." In other words, it's perfectly O.K. to wage "pre-emptive" war against a country even if they've been proven to not be a threat to us, just as long as we make sure the outcome is as we desire it.

:crazy:

Sorry...I'm not about to join the Naderites, but this looks to me like a major gaffe by Kerry. It gives the Republicans more ammunition to label him a flip-flopper, pisses off the antiwar community whose votes he needs, and leaves himself wide open to the G.O.P. reply that we just need to get tougher and "stay the course" with Bush at the helm to win the peace.

I've thought, for the past few weeks, that this was Kerry's race to lose. A few more missteps like this, and he may just manage to do so. Sigh...

[WLKjr]

5. sounds like you lost hope

and that is EXACTLY what the right wants you to do, to feel sorry for yourself and to not want to vote JK or JE.

Plus, Put a link up next time if you are going to qoute.

[K-W]

6. Kerry isnt going to our job for us.

That isnt a reason not to vote for him. He is no hero, but would make a far better president than Bush, that is all the election is about, who would make the better president.

[WLKjr]

16. well he is a hero

a vietnam vet compared to * AWOL Bush. Anyone that serves in combat for no matter how long is considered a hero in my book, no matter what political party they are from.

[NewHampshireDem]

7. Do not mis-represent what he said ...

He did not vote for the war ... he voted for an authorization to give the president the power to go war should Saddam fail to meet the requirements of the UN resolutions and the agreement that ended Gulf War I.

He made it pretty clear that he disapproved of the way that * used that authorization.

[kikiek]

12. Yah I read what you did. I wonder what the poster was reading.

I didn't see anything stating he would have gone to war also. If they're going to quote him it should be accurate.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. It's that same "digital thinking" that we see all the time....

People can no longer see the various contigencies and shades of complexity in politics. It's all "with us or against us" bullshit.

It get's old that people are so unsophisticated they cannot understand the difference between voting for war and voting to allow the president to wage war under very specific circumstances.

[kikiek]

23. I think you're absolutely right. It seems to affect the liberal people

more than the conservative. I must say Bush has taught me how divided our country is, and what it can become when you shove one ideology down everyones throat.

[Kimber Scott]

35. How hard is it to say - "Knowing what I know now, my vote may have

been different." It's not that freaking complex!

[Liberal Veteran]

42. Why should his vote have been different?

Without the threat of force, the inspections would not have happened at all.

We did need more than a paper tiger in this.

It doesn't necessarily follow that because he would have voted for the authorization that he would have actually waged war.

[merh]

53. Maybe because he doesn't want to tell the mothers, fathers, brothers

sisters, husbands and wives of those who have died that they died in vein. Having been in combat and having meet people that suffered from his words in the 70's that the war was wrong, maybe he learned some empathy and has decided that there are other ways to make a difference than to just mouth off that the war is wrong. Maybe his years of dealing with vets that were forgotten because they fought in a war that was wrong made him realize that words can do as much harm as they can good. He is doing more, he is putting his words in action, he is trying to get into office to make a difference.

He never said he would vote for the war, he said he would have allowed the UN inspectors to do their job. He wouldn't have rushed to the use of force the way * did.

[SOS]

51. These unsophisticated people understood

that giving the Iraq-obsessed Bush authorization was a vote for war. Nothing else.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Kerry made a political calculation with an eye on the presidency. In retrospect, given the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq, it was a mistake. (And yes, I am voting for Kerry)

[Liberal Veteran]

69. We'll have to disagree...

I would have preferred a different resolution, but I don't think putting some teeth behind our inspection policy was a bad idea.

[BillZBubb]

78. Maybe I misunderstood but

if he knew what he knows now--THAT THERE WEREN'T AND FRIGGIN WMD--why did the inspections need "teeth"? To what end would that have been necessary?

Kerry's vote was wrong when he made it for lots of reasons. And it would have been inexcusable knowing Saddam was toothless.

[Kimber Scott]

25. He made it clear, he disapproved of invading Iraq without a plan

to win the peace. That's it.

I've been a die-hard ABBer since day one. I supported Kerry, before Clark, then went back to Kerry again. I was starting to feel pretty good about Kerry, but, now I'm beginning to feel pretty helpless in all of this. Nuances be damned. It isn't so hard to say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq - knowing what we know now. Of course, we all knew it then. But, Kerry could, at least, pretend he voted for the resolution based on the evidence presented to him - which he NOW KNOWS to be false - and had he been told the TRUTH, things probably would have been different. How hard is that? How FUCKING hard is that?

I'm pissed. If Kerry is going to play Bush Lite. I won't vote for him. I won't vote for anybody.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Bullshit....you are misrepresenting what he said.

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently,"

All he is saying is he would have authorized the threat of force and used that authority MUCH differently.

NOTHING (need I repeat it?) in that quote indicates he would have used that authority to go to war unless he absolutely had to.

[Kimber Scott]

38. How am I misrepresenting? He's said it over and over, he would not

have invaded without a plan to win the peace. Yeehah. I was fine with that. I could handle that as a middle of the road bullshit response. We all know he has to say what he has to say to get elected. But, to NOT say he was lied to about Iraqi WMD and knowing the truth might have made a difference in the way he voted is a little too much for me to stomach, right now. He's left the barn door wide open for Bush. Wide open.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. That's ONE of the things he said.

You are reading into it that he would have invaded regardless and THAT is a misrepresentation.

[Kimber Scott]

80. I never said that. You are reading into to what I said.

That's misrepresentation, as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Threatening and doing are different things

More fool Kerry, I suppose, for believing Bush to be honorable enough to keep to his word, but giving the president the authority didn't mean one expected him to use it. We've got nukes, too, but haven't used them in a while. But the entire cold war was a dance about who might and when...

[elperromagico]

27. And it's also pretty certain that Bush

would have gone to war with or without Senate authorization. He was pushed into getting Senate authorization, all the while insisting that he didn't need it.

On the one hand, you have Bush, who wanted a Senate resolution only as a further excuse to go to war. On the other, you have Kerry, who wanted a Senate resolution as leverage in dealing with Saddam.

Senators like Kerry voted yes to the IWR in the hopes that it would further persuade Saddam to allow weapons inspectors to do their necessary work. Is he guilty of naivete for trusting Bush not to use that authorization as a blank check? Arguably yes. Is he guilty of pushing for a war in Iraq? I think not.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. I agree with you. nt

[alarimer]

67. I just finished John Dean's book

he makes the point that the war authorization was used ILLEGALLY by Bush. Bush made only one determination instead of two as required by the law. I am not entirely clear on it but apparently Dean considers it to be fraudulent. Anyway "Worse than Watergate" is a pretty good book.

[blm]

9. Because his vote was for a RESOLUTION to give the president authority

to go war after it was determined to be a last resort. ALL presidents should be given that authority but most would use it correctly and according to the guidelines of the resolution - in this case, weapons inspectors would go in to determine the need for disarming.

BUSH DIDN'T ADHERE TO THE RESOLUTION so you blame the resolution? Nice of you to let Bush off the hook.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Bingo. I don't think many people understand what Kerry's vote really was.

It wasn't a vote for war.

[Kimber Scott]

34. He made it clear, he disapproved of invading Iraq without a plan

to win the peace, not that he disapproved of invading in the first place.

How hard is it to say, "My vote was based on the evidence placed before me by the Bush administration. I now know that evidence was not accurate. Based on that information, if I knew then, what I know now, my vote may very well have been different." How fucking hard is that?

I've been a die-hard ABBer from day one. I even supported Kerry before Clark came along and then went back to Kerry with my full support. But, if Kerry is going to play Bush Lite, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for anybody - for the first time since I've been eligible to vote - I won't do it.

[blm]

40. Guess you're not understanding what a resolution means.

And why presidents historically obtain resolutions.

Congrats to Rove that you and so many accept the spin that the resolution is to blame for the war.

THE RESOLUTION WAS TO PUT THE INSPECTORS IN WITH THE THREAT OF FORCE AS BACKUP!!! That's what ALL resolutions are for.

The VOTE was right. The receiver of the authority from that vote did not implement it honestly.

[Kimber Scott]

46. Guess not.

Don't patronize me. If you don't think these remarks are going to hurt Kerry, and the campaign, wait until Rove is done with them.

[DaveinMD]

47. what's going to hurt Kerry

is people like you not understanding what he did and deciding to sit on their hands instead of taking action to remove the worst president of the modern era.

[Kimber Scott]

84. I'm going to do what I have to do to get Bush out. I had just started to

think Kerry wasn't just the lesser of two evils. I have a right to be disappointed.

[DaveinMD]

139. be disappointed

It sounded like you weren't voting for him. Regardless, I think Kerry is a very good man who will have a sound foreign policy. He'll involve the world community in fighting terrorism. And won't fight wars of convenience.

Kerry has had a great progressive career in the Senate and I'm proud to support him. I think we should all get behind him.

[JetCityLiberal]

75. My Senator Patty Murray

voted NO.

She is up for re-election.

I am voting for Kerry but his yes on IWR was stupid. It still is.

JetCityLiberal

[blm]

135. Difference is, when Kerry is president he'll need resolutions on the table

as part of his diplomatic tools.

Murray's decision was made without ever having to factor that point in.

ANY president should be given a resolution as a tool to use to prevent war, as this one was with its weapons inspectors in first clause.

You all let Bush off the hook by blaming the IWR instead of his dishonest implementation of it.

[GR]

11. I Agree This Is Insane..Let's Not Kid Our Selves With Excuses...

This is wrong....way wrong...

[NC_Nurse]

13. I understand your disappointment.

I felt the same way when I first heard John Edwards reiterate his support for the war when asked back during the primaries. I would prefer that they stand up and denounce this war as well. I have decided, however, that at this point it doesn't really matter because we're there now and stuck for the time being.
I have enough concern over other issues that I do believe Kerry and Edwards are vastly superior to * on including the environment, economy, health care, civil rights, and diplomacy.

Frankly, I don't believe they would have started this war. I'm not sure how they rationalize supporting it, but I don't believe we'd be there if it weren't for the arrogance and ignorance of the Bush Cabal.
:shrug:

[Q]

15. Don't believe those who say that the resolution really wasn't about...

...going to war. Everyone that signed on to that resolution knew what was going to happen...which is why some Dems wanted it changed to say that he HAD TO come back to congress for approval BEFORE he attacked. Congress GAVE AWAY their Constitutional authority to declare war to an insane, lying Bush*.

- I'm as disillusioned as you...and to add to that feeling of dread is the fact that many Democrats have joined with the 'other side' in denial about this most unjust, horrible war.

[merh]

61. Just because some of us understand why Kerry said what he said does

not equate to our "joining the other side" and in denial that this war is wrong. Most everyone on this board believes the war is wrong. We also understand that no one anticipated the misuse of office and the lies of this admin. It is unconceivable to this day that the bastards have gotten away with all they have. How many time have posters said "if it had been Clinton they would have hung him out to dry"?

I don't know Kerry personally, but I have a suspicion that he is concerned about the guys over there and he is concerned about their mental health when they come home. Having said the words in the 70's that the war was wrong and having lived with and recognized the repercussions of his words on individual vets when they came home, maybe he realizes that the words are just as harmful as the war itself.

How do you tell the families of those that gave their lives that they did so in vein? How are the vets that come home supposed to live with themselves when the folks here all repeat over and over and over again that the war was wrong? Did we learn nothing from VietNam? How many vets came home to be forgotten and shunned?

Kerry is doing more than any of us -- he is running for office to dethrone the evil weed that has f'uped our nation. He is trying to get into office to try to correct the wrongs of this admin. He will not be able to tell what it is he can do until he gets into office because the admin is so damned secretive and has lied to so many.

I heard Clark say substantially the same thing about the war the other night on t.v. He didn't say it was wrong, he said it was wrong the way that * and co. went about it and it was wrong because they had no exit strategy.

Folks, get a gripe, there is more going on than we can fathom, we see things in snippets on the net and we conjure up possibilities without substance. We know more than most because we want to know. The operations of government are far more complicated than we know and Kerry cannot tell how bad it is until Jan 2, 2005, and when he gets there it is going to take him a while to straighten things out.

IMHO

[calico1]

17. Two words to think of before you decide not to vote.

Supreme Court. A Supreme Court justice can serve 20, 30, even 40 years. That is a lot longer than any Administration----a lot longer than either candidate will affect your life. I am not happy with the war either. (Although I also believe Kerry was misled into voting for it as were other Senators. And now we have a mess we have to deal with). But one thing I know is Kerry will not pick the same kind of people to serve on the court as Bush. And at least 3 are expected to retire in the next term. Many of the most important votes recently have been decided on a 5-4 margin. The bare minimum. Please do not underestimate the importance of future justices. Things like abortion rights, many civil and privacy rights that we all take for granted could drastically change with a very right wing court. Keep that in mind before you decide to stay home. Not voting favors Bush. Kerry is not perfect but he is in no way the same as Bush. The war is not the only issue you should think about.

[DaveinMD]

18. he didn't say

he would go to war. He said he would vote for the resolution giving authority to go to war. This is a diplomatic tool. He would have waited for the inspections to take place. Its the reasoned approach.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Pardon me, BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Taking quotes out of context is a bullshit tactic. Fundamentally misunderstanding history is just dumb.

Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again.

Kerry did not say he would still have gone to war in Iraq. This is what he said:

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period.

====

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

(snip)

PITT: Isn't VX gas a greater concern?

RITTER: VX is different, for a couple of reasons. First, unlike sarin and tabun, which the Iraqis admitted to, for the longest time the Iraqis denied they had a program to manufacture VX. Only through the hard work of inspectors were we able to uncover the existence of the program.

PITT: How did that happen?

RITTER: Inspectors went to the Muthanna State establishment and found the building the Iraqis had used for research and development. It had been bombed during the war, causing a giant concrete roof to collapse in on the lab. That was fortuitous, because it meant we essentially had a time capsule: lifting the roof and gaining access to the lab gave us a snapshot of Iraqi VX production on the day in January when the bomb hit. We sent in a team who behaved like forensic archaeologists. They lifted the roof – courageously, it was a very dangerous operation – went inside, and were able to grab papers and take samples that showed that Iraq did in fact have a VX research and development lab.

Caught in that first lie, the Iraqis said, "We didn't declare the program because it never went anywhere. We were never able to stabilize the VX." Of course the inspectors didn’t take their word for it, but pressed: "How much precursor did you build?" Precursor chemicals are what you combine to make VX. "How much VX did you make? Where did you dispose of it?" The Iraqis took the inspectors to a field where they'd dumped the chemicals. Inspectors took soil samples and indeed found degradation byproducts of VX and its precursors.

Unfortunately, we didn't know whether they dumped all of it or held some behind. So we asked what containers they'd used. The Iraqis pointed to giant steel containers provided by the Soviet Union to ship fuel and other liquids, which the Iraqis had converted to hold VX. The inspectors attempted to do a swab on the inside of the containers and found they'd been bleached out: there was nothing there. But one inspector noticed a purge valve on the end of the containers. The inspection team took a swab and found stabilized VX.

We confronted the Iraqis with their second lie. They took a fallback position: "OK, you're right, we did stabilize VX. But we didn't tell you about it because we never weaponized the VX. To us it's still not a weapons program. We decided to eliminate it on our own. As you can see, we've blown it up. It's gone, so there's no need to talk about it."

We caught them in that lie as well. We found stabilized VX in SCUD missiles demolished at the warhead destruction sites. The Iraqis had weaponized the VX, and lied to us about it.

We knew the Iraqis wanted to build a full-scale VX nerve agent plant, and we had information that they'd actually acquired equipment to do this. We hunted and hunted, and finally in 1996 were able to track down two hundred crates of glass-lined production equipment Iraq had procured specifically for a VX nerve agent factory. They'd been hiding it from the inspectors. We found it in 1996, and destroyed it. With that, Iraq lost its ability to produce VX.

All of this highlights the complexity of these issues. We clearly still have an unresolved VX issue in Iraq. Just as clearly Iraq has not behaved in a manner reflective of an honest effort to achieve resolution. And it's tough to work in a place where you've been lied to.

(snip)

Pitt: Considering everything you've experienced, how do you feel about the Iraqi government in general?

RITTER: The Iraqi government is firmly entrenched, having seen over thirty years of Ba'ath Party rule. The Ba'ath Party has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi life – cultural, economic, educational, political. It's irresponsible to oversimplify what's going on there, to try to somehow separate Saddam Hussein from the rest of the political machinery. It doesn't work that way.

I'm realistic in understanding that the Iraqi government is much stronger inside Iraq than most people give it credit for. I don't think people should take the Iraqi government too lightly. It's a brutal regime that has shown a disregard for international law and a definite disregard for human rights. It's a regime that has shown – as have many other governments around the world, including ours – an ability to lie to people about policy objectives. There's no need to beat around the Bush. The Iraqis failed to tell the truth. I understand this cannot be accepted. But in the world of politics, if you cut off all activity with those who tell lies, no one would be do business with anybody.

[Snoggera]

30. Didn't see your response

before I posted my one liner.

I don't know what to make of people sometimes. Take a quotation that was probably repeated ad nauseum on the cable news and decide, based on that, to feel disappointed to the point of not voting.

How many times does a presidential candidate have to explain his positions before it sinks in?

Maybe there should be an IQ test for voters. (not truly advocating that, though I am aware that many just took that line literally)

[Q]

36. Would have, should have, could have...

...and I'm getting just as sick of the defenders of this resolution. The FACT is Kerry and other Democrats voted for a resolution that took the decision to go to war out of the hands of congress and gave it to the 'president'. They left it up to HIM to make the decision. How idiotic is that?

- Kerry can backtrack and say anything he wants NOW...but that vote will always be indefensible. The Democrats who DIDN'T sign it knew what was happening...which is why Kennedy, Byrd and others gave speeches questioning the intent and timing of the resolution.

- Talking about WMD is nothing more than a distraction. Kerry and the DLC were pushing for war as much as the PNACers. They may or may not have attacked Iraq if they were in the WH...but they took advantage and went along with the warmongers...KNOWING that Iraq posed no threat to the US.

- It seems we're reliving Vietnam. Everyone KNOWS the Iraq 'war' is wrong...but only some are brave enough to say it.

[DaveinMD]

39. that's a load of huey

You can't get the inspectors in without the threat of military force. Kerry made the right vote. He would have waited for the inspectors to finish their work. That was the right course.

[zulchzulu]

123. Thanks Will!

Well said. Well done.

[regnaD kciN]

129. Then please explain this one to me, Will...

"The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective."

Why would you need weapons inspections if you already knew that THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ???

[DaveinMD]

138. he was saying

he doesn't regret his vote because he would have let the inspections go forward. That means, ultimately there would have been no war. This is pretty clear.

[eridani]

166. Since when did the threat of force--

--have to be in the sole hands of George Bush in order for it to be a credible threat? Doesn't it work just as well if Congress retains the sole authority?

[Snoggera]

20. This is what he said

""Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said "



That is very different from what your thread title suggests. VERY DIFFERENT.

[NightOwwl]

21. That's the reporters recap, not Kerry's quote.

GRAND CANYON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted for authorization to go to war in Iraq even knowing now that there's no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in that country.

What Kerry actually said (notice that he is not quoted in entirety, the reporter cut off what he said after "differently"):

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Kerry voted for the war.

The apologists can spin it silly, but he voted for the war, or he is beyond stupid. Everyone knew that Shrubya was going to invade Iraq and asked for congressional cover. Kerry joined the pugs and complied. 23 other senators, including his fellow senator from MA, wouldn't buy into it and courageously voted against it.

I've got my extra-strengh nose clamp prepared, and will vote for him, but, so far, according to his own words, all I can see is more of the same for Iraq.

[DaveinMD]

24. Bull

the inspectors would not have been allowed back in without the threat of war. And things will be different under a President Kerry because he will get the world involved in rebuilding Iraq. This will allow our troops to come home sooner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. How?

What is his secret plan for getting the "world involved in rebuilding Iraq"?

Our troops will come home when the Iraqis kick them out of their country.

[DaveinMD]

107. the world

hates the Bush administration so much that having a new president will give Kerry a unique opportunity to mend fences. Secondly, France and Germany can be convinced to help by guaranteeing contractors from those companies a cut of the rebuilding business. The country will no longer be run by Haliburton.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. Nonsense.

Chirac and Shroeder aren't about to jump into the brier patch like Blair and Aznar did. They're more than aware what would happen to them.

The only way that Kerry can convince "the world" that he means business about getting out is to turn control of the military occupation over to the UN - including our military. He has made no statement to that effect, and he would be crucified by the right if he attempted it.

The way out of Iraq is to get out.

[DaveinMD]

116. you can't just leave

that would make everything worse. I think under Kerry Iraq would become a NATO operation much like Kosovo was.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. Why not? It's our presence there that's causing the bloodshed.

How is Kerry going to get NATO involved? Do you think that the NATO members are going to want to send their troops to get shot at? France? Germany? Belgium? Canada? Only the UK and Italy are militarily significant and they alread have troops there against the wishes of their own people. Spain has a new government because they sent troops. Poland and Hungary have sent troops against the wishes of the vast majority of their people.

If we just leave, cut and run, admit defeat, claim victory, or whatever metaphor, there probably will be bloodshed and chaos. Which is exactly what there is there now. We aren't helping the situation, we're making it worse.

[DaveinMD]

140. because

it has become a hotbed of islamic fundamentalism. It wasn't before we were there, but our presence has led to it. There is a power vacuum and we can't vacate because Iran will just swoop in. Kerry will involve other nations by working in good faith. I really believe other nations will reward this good faith by trying to help the new American President. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it will happen.

[noamnety]

26. in his own words

Listen to his statement on the floor of the senate:

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/press/audio_list.html

He talks about the infamous $87 billion in the first minute and a half, but then he lets us know in no uncertain terms how he feels about the rest of the war. (third link down, last I checked)

[flpoljunkie]

28. Kerry does not want to be "just like George W. Bush!" Hold W accountable!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."

But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he 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 that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

"These are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

______________________

They damn sure do! Media, do your jobs! And always remember that Bush ran around endlessly repeating to the entire world, "War is my last resort." This was obviously, not the truth, and we all must hold him accountable in November!

[Proud liberal Kat]

29. I wish the link had full text

It was my understanding that Kerry wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, that he only gave authorization to give BushCo more leverage in the UN for inspections and such. If it is true that Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq with just a better plan, I must admit I am severely disappointed, but doesn't dishearten my vote at all.

There is nothing I want more than Bush out of the White House and Kerry is the only one with a chance at it. I don't think he would have gone to the Iraq War...but if he really said that and that is what it meant in context, he still is leaps and bounds beyond Bush
Kathy

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Here's the quote:

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently,"

[Deja Q]

33. What happened has happened. Kerry is far more likely to fix things than *

Look at *. He's doing nothing positive, everything negative.

Never give up hope.

Please don't. Not this time. Maybe next time (I don't blame you) but not this time.

[oasis]

37. Let me get this straight, "people like you" require a candidate with

conviction.

How about your conviction and committment to getting GWB out of office?

Re-commit to getting Bush out and I'm willing to forget that you wavered.

[Lexingtonian]

41. no, nothing has changed

I think everybody had to become a bit of a moral high grounder to survive the Republican deluge of the past 20-30 years. But with D's now in reach of becoming the majority Party, the story isn't survival anymore. It's that if our leaders have to do the governing, we also have to deal with The People as it is as much as the way we hope it will become.

It takes a while to stop living defensively, to stop being a High Horse Democrat at bottom and become one of the people doing the hard work of good governance. John Kerry has to be and present himself as the latter to succeed. I know it was hard to for me to make the transition- one doesn't give it up, the sensibility, but you have to give up the _attitude_ of the theoretical take on the world and embrace the practical attitude while keeping heart steering by True North. I hope you find something similar true for yourself. Being of the opinion that is right is not Doing The Right Thing, but living both is possible. And the idea that you are right about something turns out, in my experience, to matter less in the end than the feeling that you are doing the good, participating in it.

Good Luck

[Suzi Creamcheese]

48. Just vote for Nader. It's better than no vote at all

This way you at least demonstrate some positive inclination toward change and a rejection of the war. If you don't want to vote for Kerry, there is still a way to express your position positively. That's what a lot of my friends are planning on doing as we get further and further away from any kind of antiwar position from the Democrats. I haven't made my mind up yet but I think anything is better than no vote at all.

[DaveinMD]

49. great

you might as well not vote. I am so sick of people on the left making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is why the right keeps beating us. Because if we don't get everything our way, we pick up our toys and go home. If this continues, we're going to live in a country where there is no social safety net, where people are jailed for voicing dissent, where social security is eliminated, where the income tax is eliminated and more regressive taxation is in place and more terrible things. If this is what you want, vote for Nader or stay home. If you want to change things for the better, vote for John Kerry.

[Cha]

52. nader is nothing but a spoiler...if he really wanted to help

our Country..he would run for Senator, Congressman, or mayor to work his way up..he has no creditials anymore, but that of a lying, spoiler..and now he's got the repukes paying people to get signatures to get him on ballots.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

56. If you are sick of the left maybe you should do something else

There are a lot of people on the left here. This is a strange place to come and say you are sick of us.

[DaveinMD]

58. I'm sick

of people on the left threatening to take their ball and go home because they don't get everything they want. I'm a liberal Dem. That's why I'm here. We keep losing because we make the perfect the enemy of the good. The left needs to get behind Kerry. Voting for Nader or staying out home will only lead to more wars and a rightwing court. Those are the choices. They are the only choices.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

74. Well I think a little optimism is good as well

I haven't made up my mind on the Nader/Kerry thing but I like to find a little bit of good in everybody on the left. People get so certain that only their particular flavor tastes good that they shut out others and fragment the community that has to be built for any real change to occur.

[DaveinMD]

92. I would implore you

to vote for Kerry. He won't be perfect, but he's a good man who will do what is best for the country, not for the powerful. We need your vote.

[Joe Chi Minh]

155. Politics, the art of the possible

An old saw, "Politics is the art of the possible" is another way of expressing what DaveinMD is saying to you, Kimber and Suzy.

I would prefer Kucinich to any of them by the length of a street, but I was greatly heartened by Dean because it was he put the wind up the media moguls, who monopolise mainstream broadcasting so that it is simply a propaganda arm of the right. And rightly so, because as Kerry and others have freely admitted, it was really he, Deano, "brought them into play" against this seemingly impregnable panoply of the "received wisdom"(!) of the right.

So, when, with the help of the media, who saw Kerry as the most patrician, Establishment type, Kerry virtually won the nomination during the primaries, I was gutted. But after watching the Democratic Convention on C-Span, I heard some of the policies Kerry intends to implement, I was absolutely bowled over. I dare't specify them here, because they are literally sensational. I just wish we had a leader in the UK with such ideals. And I believe that with a landslide victory in the offing, he may well be able to make significant progress in implementing them.

The thing is, you see, that the wealth in the US is so concentrated now that the US is now almost like one of those many South American country, which the US has traditionally prevented from developing socio-economically. And in that political scenario, Kucinich and even Dean, would, in vulgar parlance, be pissing in the wind. You saw what they did to Dean - and that though they didn't have a leg to stand on!

But Kerry has the social background and "status" to confront the neocons head on - indeed looking down on them. So he really can be a healer right across the board, because I believe there are a lot of old-style Republicans who will actually be on his side, your side. Hang in. I don't believe he could ever be anything like as treacherous as our UK "Labour"(!)Party, or would ever want to. He's repeatedly proved his spirit of courage and selfless in the heat of battle. And not a metaphorical one, either.

[regnaD kciN]

167. A point to consider...

I am so sick of people on the left making the perfect the enemy of the good.

It might be harder for them to do so if those more committed to Kerry didn't try to convince us that seeing "the good" as anything other than "the perfect" was tantamount to thought-crime.

There's nothing wrong in saying that, while you still plan to vote for the Democratic candidate, Monday's answer was a big disappointment and a likely misstep. It isn't a matter of disloyalty, Nader-worship, or Freeperhood...all of which charges I've seen on this site in recent days.

If some of the more zealotic Kerry supports convince others that one has to cast aside all doubts and, in essence, acknowledge Kerry as perfect in order to vote for him, lots of people will sit on their hands or vote for third-party candidates come November. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that Kerry is flawed, while still maintaining that he'd be a huge advantage over Bush.

[oasis]

54. If you and your friends are draft age, you should consider "planning"

for a '05 summer in Syria, if Chimpy wins.

[latebloomer]

55. I am far from confident that there won't be a draft

no matter WHO is elected.

[DaveinMD]

59. their won't be

a draft with Kerry because he will get the rest of the world to share the burden in Iraq and build real allies in the fight against terrorism.

[RhodaGrits]

146. I wish I believed that. I fear that a draft is inevitable no matter

who is elected. But if they have to drag off our sons and daughters, I'd much rather have Kerry in command.

[DaveinMD]

147. why

would Kerry institute the draft. He is not a neo-con who wants to invade every country in the arab world.

[RhodaGrits]

159. No, I don't fear his invading other countries.

But if we have to stay as a security force in Iraq for another 4-5 yrs... we have exhausted our active reserves and reached a limit of what they can do. 85% of our troops are NOT re-enlisting according to an article I read so the replacements will have to come from somewhere. I don't believe they will get enough volunteers - I think they will have to resort to a draft.

If Bush is re-elected I KNOW there will be a draft and I do fear he *will* invade Syria and/or Iran. I hate it when my only option is the lesser of two evils but the evil was initiated by Bush, not Kerry (even if I do think he was wrong on the IWR - but that's hindsight and he's come to his senses.)

[regnaD kciN]

168. I'm sure he WANTS to do that...

he will get the rest of the world to share the burden in Iraq

...but, personally, I don't see "the rest of the world" changing their position and consenting to join a quagmire-in-progress just because there's a new face in the White House.

As far as "the rest of the world" is concerned, I suspect their attitude about the U.S. and Iraq is "you broke it, you fix it."

[oasis]

62. Bush wins and a draft is guaranteed. PNAC needs armies for occupation.

[latebloomer]

63. That is clear

However, it is far from clear to me that Kerry's military plans won't require a draft as well.

[merh]

72. I seriously doubt many people on the left are voting for Nader

He has too many ties to RW repukes and is taking their money to support his non-efforts. You should like you have been talking with those types and not members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...

:shrug:

[Suzi Creamcheese]

76. I still think it is better than not voting at all which is what the poster

said was her alternative. Jeez, it's not like I said to vote for Bush or something. Is this a deal where everybody has to march lockstep or what? Aren't we better off working for change than attacking each other?

[DaveinMD]

77. voting for

Nader is a vote for Bush. The only vote against Bush is a vote for Kerry.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

83. OK, that's your opinion

Nothing wrong with having an opinion. Have a pleasant evening DaveinMD

[merh]

93. Yes, right now for the future of our nation there is only 1 choice...

If you want a future with possibilities and civil liberties, if you want a stronger economy and a safer nation, if you want a cleaner environment - if you care any thing at all about the future of the USofA - the vote must be for Kerry.

if you don't give a damn about our nation, about the future for our children and grandchildren, if the economy is of no concern to you, if you like war and terror and fear and the loss of civil liberties, then vote for either of the other guys.

It is that simple.

[Kimber Scott]

86. No Nader.

That's a non-issue. I'm mad at MY candidate - John Kerry - but, I can guarantee you I won't be voting for Nader. If I don't vote for Kerry, I won't vote at all. I haven't decided, yet. Right now, I'm pissed. I'll probably get over it.

[NEDem]

50. I've only been coming to DU for a month or 2 now

and I'm already sick and fucking tired of these kinds of posts. If you don't like Kerry the go vote for someone else, just take your fucking whining to someone who cares.

Frankly I think the majority of these posts are from freepers trying to rile the DU'rs up. And it always works.

I for one am tired of these sorry ass wimps getting all bent out of shape when Kerry makes a calculated political move that deosn't match EXACTLY what they think Kerry should be. Well I got news for you, you'll never find a candidate you agree with 100%. NEVER.

Whether you like it or not, Politics is a game. Its a game of compromises, start learning how the game is played or go cheney yourself!

The stakes are too high in the game this year. We've got too much momentum right now to let a bunch of cry babies slow us down. Either get onboard or get run over, its your choice.

[latebloomer]

60. I've been coming here for nearly 3 years

and I don't appreciate your tone.

All of us have been horrified and outraged by what has been going on in this country. Most of us are still planning on voting for Kerry, despite our deep disappointment in him as a candidate. He is not coming out and saying the things that we feel need to be said. He is not condemning the militarism, the empire-building, the criminality of the Iraq war from day 1, the rape and pillage of our civil liberties.

Some of us need to talk about how we feel. As I said, most of us are still planning on voting for Kerry, but excuse us if we're not a bunch of bloody cheerleaders for him.

I for one resent your attempts to censor us.

[Kimber Scott]

88. DU isn't just a sounding board for the party message. It's a place to

vent, worry, celebrate, debate and educate. I'm sorry if my honest disappointment in my candidate bothers you. Don't read it. Move on.

[NEDem]

124. My bad

My real point is that this election is far too important to let something like this stop anyone from voting for Kerry. I was a bit to harsh in my initial email, and I apologize to you Kimber.

I'm of the opinion that * is such a despicable and disgusting example of humanity that I am pretty much willing to overlook Kerry's shortcomings. Am I 'cheerleading' you bet. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Nor am I ashamed to admit that I don't like everything Kerry stands for, but that certainly will not stop me from voting for him.

Kerry is the nominee that has the best shot of unseating this tyrannical regime. Nothing could stop me from voting for him, and I don't see how anyone who sees * in this manner could consider not voting at all.

[George_Bonanza]

57. This doesn't not mean he would've invaded Iraq

This is simply about his vote. Hypothetical scenario: John Kerry defeats Al Gore in the 2000 primaries and trounces Bush. 9/11 occurs and rumours swirl about Iraq. Through Republican badgering, an IWR vote is called up. Kerry is given authority on Iraq, just like Bush. Yet he allows the weapons inspectors more time and finds no weapons. Hence, no invasion.

[MGKrebs]

64. I am sympathetic Kimber.

it's very disappointing. I'm going to vote for Kerry. I am going to assume that this was a BS statement that his handlers think is a good idea. I am certain Kerry will be a better president than Butsh.

I want to believe that if John Kerry knew that Iraq had no nukes, had no chemical weapons, no link to al Qaida, no link to 9/11, was no imminent threat, that he would have chosen some other path than to approve this language:

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to  (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

I am also disappointed in the fractured logic of supposedly being able to VOTE on it AND using it differently. You don't get to vote on it and use it! It was authorizing someone else to use it!

In the end though, we can be upset at the pawn shop owner who sells the gun to the murderer, but it's the murderer who pulls the trigger. We must defeat Bush.

[DaveinMD]

65. the point is

Kerry wanted the inspections to go forward so we could find answers about the weapons. He wouldn't have invaded when Bush did.

[MGKrebs]

70. But that's not what he said.

He said that even if he had KNOWN there were no weapons, he would have voted for it.

I'm sure he's smart, and he's got a lot of smart people around him. They know what they are doing. He's not going to be able to please everybody all the time. This bit does not please me (and others). We will have to deal with it.

[DaveinMD]

73. I interpreted it

to mean he didn't regret his vote, but didn't approve of how Bush handled the aftermath of the resolution. I think its clear, Kerry would have allowed the inspectors to finish their work.

[Kimber Scott]

90. Thank you.

You're right. I'll vote, but I'm still pissed.

[George_Bonanza]

66. The bigotry of low expectations

Here we are wringing our heads and hands over Kerry's words (in campaign mode, where words are looser than a fat man's pant waist), and who's getting a free pass here? The actual man who conceived, plotted, rationalized, and decided by his sole authority to go into Iraq. Kerry was just one of a hundred senators, and his vote was not decisive. I'm most disappointed by Kerry because of this one scarring issue, but I have enough faith in him to believe he can make things better regardless of what he says on the campaign trail.

Kimber Scott, I also felt a winding blow when I read about Kerry's statements because I just came off a heated series of arguments against a stubborn Naderite. I had him down for the count and now this which will definitely weaken my case. But as I said, it's all just part of the political game and campaign shenanigans which will end in November. I believe Kerry will be free of electoral shackles by January and we will see his true leadership then.

[Kimber Scott]

97. I hope so. I truly do.

I know he can't be worse than Bush, but damn, can't he just cut the bastard off at the knees when he has the chance? I know. I know. It would be politically incorrect to call a sitting president a liar. Oh... wait. Didn't somebody do that before and then end up taking control of both the House, the Senate and the White House? Nah, must have been a movie.

Anyway... thank you all for taking the time to respond to my concerns. I've said it here already, but I'll say it one last time. I'm going to vote... for Kerry.

[George_Bonanza]

105. My take on Kerry's political rationale on his comments

He can't afford to be seen as uncommitted to Iraq. If he bluntly says Iraq was a horrible mistake and he is contrite over his vote, the RNC will spin it to hell as comments betraying his lack of commitment to the Middle East problems. A lot of Americans are seeing the truth behind Bush's lies and are disgusted with his ineptitude. However, most American do not favour an immediate exit strategy because they believe the U.S. has the obligation to fix up the mess we have made. I'm thinking that Kerry doesn't want to be seen as someone who regrets Iraq, will make half-assed attempt at a cleanup duty, then whisk all attempts in aid when it becomes most convenient to do so.

[Zomby Woof]

68. oh boohoohoo!

[CTLawGuy]

71. don't you know

that Kerry is infallible :eyes:

the IWR is not a war resolution,
the IWR has never been a war resolution,
2+2 = 5; 2+2 has always = 5

Long live the DLC...

I am off to the Two Minutes Nader Hate...

[ClassWarrior]

79. Yes, what's the point? Just give up and hand away all your control.

<sarcasm off>

[Kimber Scott]

94. You had me for a minute.

I almost asked, "What control?" I have decided to vote, anyway. At least, I can hang on to my delusions. It seems it's all I have left.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[DaveinMD]

85. enjoy

4 more years of George Bush. That is what you want, that is what you get.

[The Hair in my Nose]

87. Nah....

Kerry is far enough ahead in the polls that he can afford a few votes that remind him there is a democratic wing of the democratic party.

[DaveinMD]

91. that's hogwash

this is an extremely close election. Every vote matters and is needed. If this election is close, it will be stolen again. This is especially true if you live in a swing state.

[JohnKleeb]

89. Bush lite?

Dennis wouldnt agree with you at all, I supported him a well. Nader gets money from republicans, thats probably about the sickest thing I can think of, hes not exactly perfect himself. Kerry isnt anything near Bushlite, a Bushlite doesnt favor helping kids get in to college easier from working familes, a bushlite doesnt oppose teh death penalty, a bushlite didnt endorse ENDA, I could go on and on but Kerry is about as far from Bushlite as there is, I have to wonder what you think of real Bushlites like the guy who liked Bush so much, he joined the GOP.

[The Hair in my Nose]

95. Where in the hell have all the PEACE advocates gone?

Kerry starts his acceptance speech with a salute and "reporting for duty remark" and now he is trying to be a kinder gentler general.

Where are all of the people in our party who believe this damn war is immoral and we need to get the hell out?

[JohnKleeb]

98. Hes a navy vet

You ever think that some of us respect our military and its history, i dunno about you but one of the greatest things a guy can do for his country is serve it in the military.
Our party isnt full of people who believe war is immoral, I hate to say it but not all war is wrong. Kerry has promised to bring the troops home within 4 years. Also you said he was bushlite, supply me with mainstream issues like abortion, stem cells, education where Kerry is like Bush.

[DaveinMD]

100. good post

you are wise beyond your years.

[JohnKleeb]

102. I try, I really try

Its not an issue that Kerry said reporting for duty in his acceptance speech, I tell you what is this what George W Bush would say, "I hope god is on our side humbly" no Bush wants to think God is on his side like the rat batard he is, Kerry hopes he is doing the right thing, I'd vote for Kerry because he has the better values over Bush honestly.

[DemonFighterLives]

82. I understand the IWR

And what Kerry is saying. I'll vote for him, but the hawkish talk is a little alarming. I'm sure things would be different than what Shrubco has done.
That being said, I prefer the courage of my senators, Dayton and Wellstone to vote against Bush's illegal war. The UN and the inspectors would have figured things out. What was the urgency anyway, seeing as how Iraq was not out to get us. Of course we saw what that vote did for Wellstone.

[athena]

96. I remember that vote.

At that time, very few people thought we would go to war. Most people thought that Bush just wanted to scare Saddam into submission by threatening to attack. When he asked the Senate to give him the authority to attack Iraq, Bush promised that he would attack only if there was no other option left. He cheated the Senate, and he cheated the American people. He used the same trick that Hitler used to take over Germany. The Republicans get angry when people compare Bush to Hitler, but there really are some similarities.

[latebloomer]

99. I don't think so!

Bush had been building up to attacking Iraq since 9-11 (and apparently even before that!) It looked inexorable to most of us here.

Anyone in the Senate who claimed to be fooled by him was either asleep or is a damned liar.

[Egnever]

101. Amen!

"If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, then you shouldn't vote for me" -- John F. Kerry (as reported by the LA Times 1/31/03)

[DaveinMD]

103. that just proves

he was given the same faulty intelligence that Bush sold to everyone. He would not have gone to war before the inspections were completed, so he would not have invaded.

[Egnever]

106. Unless he thought it would help him get elected.

Kerry less crappy than bush..... but trying really hard!

[DaveinMD]

111. how would that help him

in a Democratic primary.

[Egnever]

112. Beats the hell out of me

but then I never figured voting for it in the first place would help him either.

[athena]

117. Regardless of how Kerry voted,

* is the one who lied, who misled, and who reneged on his promises. It's * who deserves all this vitriol, not Kerry.

[Egnever]

120. They both do in my opinion

they aren't mutually exclusive IMHO.

[DaveinMD]

137. Kerry offers

real change because he believes in multilateralism. But if you want to keep going along the present course with no change at all. Go ahead and vote for Nader, therefore reelecting Shrub. If you want change, however incremental vote for Kerry. I implore you to join us in voting for Kerry.

[athena]

113. What?

That sentence doesn't make sense. "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me?" What does believing that Saddam Hussein is not a threat have to do with voting for Kerry?

[Egnever]

114. No clue

Ask Kerry.

[Sparkly]

151. Do you have a link to that?

Did you see it yourself, or read it someplace else? What was the context of this quote?

[athena]

108. Yeah, well, it was obvious to me too,

but to the people I talked to at the time, it wasn't obvious. It wasn't *'s rhetoric at the time.

[Individualist]

144. Exactly

It's not as if Chimp's background was unknown prior to his inauguration. He'd never done anything to inspire trust from others.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. Very few?

Bosh! There were millions of people around the world who damn well knew Bush was going to invade Iraq, and marched to protest the fact.
Not to mention the 23 senators who didn't side with Bush.

[rumguy]

110. Then vote for Kerry for our Earth's benefit.

Imagine having RFK jr. as head of EPA.

Imagine getting Gale Norton out of the Dept. of Interior.

Imagine what four more years of * will do to our environmental laws.

[zulchzulu]

118. This election is more than just about the war

There is way too much at stake to just only focus on the war. All the talk about whether Kerry would have gone into Iraq or not is speculative now. I personally believe that we would not be in Iraq if Gore or Kerry were handed the same situation that Bush was given.

Kerry will inherit the war after he beats the Chimp. Perhaps you need to get a better idea of what he will do by really checking out the Kerry web site. In NO WAY is Kerry anything like Bush on ANY issue.

Stay informed. You won't regret it.

[JohnKleeb]

122. thank you

There are people who because of the Bush adminstration cant go to college, dont get their benefits for serving their country, people without health care.

[Lex]

119. "If Kerry wants to be just like him, what's the point?"

If you think Kerry wants to be just like Bush, if that is the conclusion you have drawn after watching both of them for the last year, then there is no help for you and should just flip a coin.

[Kimber Scott]

126. That's a well reasoned argument. Maybe, I will.

Not.

If you'd have read my other posts, since my original heartbroken moment, you'd find I've already decided to stay the course.

Thanks for your help, though. Really made me think.

[noamnety]

127. Kerry condemning the war

He is not condemning the militarism, the empire-building, the criminality of the Iraq war from day 1, the rape and pillage of our civil liberties.

He HAS condemned it. I posted a link to a speech in my other post in this thread. Please, please listen to it.

[lojasmo]

130. I feel the same way

Though I have since I heard he was running.

I'll vote for Kerry because I believe that bush is evil, not because I believe Kerry will offer effective change.

[Claire Beth]

131. The point is this.....

If there is NOTHING ELSE that makes you question voting for Kerry in November, then you should certainly consider the fact that we HAVE to protect the Supreme Court and we do NOT want Dumbya appointing radical right wing justices, which is exactly what he will do. There will be at least 2 and possibly 4 justices to retire in the next couple of years so that in itself is enough to cast my vote for Kerry.

[Causidicus]

132. Amen

Let's wait until a real change is possible.

[Snivi Yllom]

133. here comes the most 'evil' name..Ralph Nader

I think he's a non-factor, but at least I know where he stands.

[DaveinMD]

136. and if you vote for him

you are really voting for the election of Shrub. Kerry offers change from the present course. Maybe its not radical change, but its nontheless.

[Snivi Yllom]

156. how so?

Just as I expected I am seeing no difference.That convention speech was the most hawkish speech I have ever heard a democrat make.

[DaveinMD]

163. no difference

Kerry supports a multilateral foreign policy. Bush supports a go it alone foreign policy.

Kerry is prochoice, Bush is antichoice.

Bush wants more tax cuts for the wealthy, Kerry wants to rescind tax cuts for the wealthy

Kerry wants to expand access to affordable health care, Bush does not.

KErry supports a real patients bill of rights, Bush protects the HMOs.

Bush favors school vouchers, Kerry opposes them and supports greater funding of the public schools.

Kerry opposes outsourcing, Bush supports it.

Kerry supports expanding americorp to help more people attend college, Bush does not.

Kerry supports amending the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties, Bush does not.

Bush wants to privatize social security, Kerry opposes this.

Bush wants to drill in the arctic, KErry wants to explore alternative energy sources.

Seems like a lot of differences to me. I'm sure there are more too.

[veteran_for_peace]

134. Issues in this election

No man loves this great country of ours more than I do. I have a great sense of patriotism that swells from my belief that our country is still a beacon for democracy around the world, and that the best of our country lies not in Washington DC but in the hearts of its citizens. However the lights of that beacon have grown dim; and, therefore, I shall speak my thoughts freely and without reservation. The time for sitting idle has ended and it is time that we rise to defend the honor and integrity of this great nation which has given us so much and yet has asked so little in return. The question before this great nation is one of the utmost importance. To use the words of Patrick Henry, “I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.” It is only through the discourse that we can preserve freedom and democracy for future generation of Americans yet unborn. Some would say that I should keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving the President the ammunition needed to retain his stranglehold on power. But I question the validity of those beliefs; if I do not speak out then I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country and do not deserve the citizenship which I was given.
It is natural for people to believe in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the words of fools in order to make ourselves believe that there are no problems with the great nation. Is this the role that patriotic Americans are to play? Are we disposed to be someone who, having eyes, cannot see the truth, and, having ears, have lost the ability to hear, the things which concern the future of this great nation? For my part, whatever it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Bush administration for the last three years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves that the have earned the right to lead this nation for another four years. Is it his use of the word values with which the President attempts to appease the American people that he is not a dangerous man? I urge my fellow Americans not to trust that for it is the gateway to slavery. Is it the fear tactics that he uses to distract us from the economic peril which faces the poor and middle class in this nation? We should not allow ourselves to sell our liberties and freedom for the delusion of safety. We must ask ourselves are we willing to sell the future of our children in order to obtain an small sense of security. Are we willing to leave to our children a heritage of deficits and broken promises? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be counted and heard that are will to accept another 4 years of this despotic regime? Let us not deceive ourselves, war has started and it is not one that will be fought on the battlefield of some foreign land, but rather it will be fought the hearts and mind of the American people? There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve those invaluable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not to abandon the righteous struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until we have obtained victory over the ones who wish to enslave us then we must fight! An appeal to take up the responsibility of preserving our democracy is all that is left for us!
The President says that John Kerry is weak; and unable to cope with such a formidable security issues such as Iraq and the “War on Terrorism”. But really who is stronger? Is it a sign of strength to destroy our alliances and go to war with a nation who did not pose a direct threat to the national security of our nation? Can the character of a leader be determined by what they did when it was there time to put their lives on the line? Shall we rest in the comfort of our strength alone? I say, that we are not weak if we make a proper use of our allies to defend the people of this world against the terrorist who threaten our way of life. Before we can expect to defeat this enemy we must first be able to identify the enemy and know how to defeat it. We must not fight this battle alone. The first battle of this war will take place on November 2, 2004 when we decide who will lead us for the next four years.

[oasis]

142. Inspiring post. (eom)

[WI_DEM]

141. it is disappointing

but we have to take our chances on Kerry. I can only speak for myself but if I knew what we know today I would just say, "I wouldn't give this president authorization to invade Iraq--period. He can't be trusted."

[napi21]

143. Do you really believe Kerry wants to be like the shrub?

I sure don't! I think Kerry is explaining how he intends to play the hand he was dealt. Would he have gone into Iraq right away like the shrub? I doubt it. Unfortunately, we're there now, and yes we made a big mess. I'm not ex-military, and I'll admit I don't know what the best tactic is to end this mess, and leave Iraq, at least stable, ASAP. Shrub says he wants Iraq to be a successful democracy. I'm not convinced that's possible. I don't think that's what the Iraqi people want. Shrub wants America to have World Superiority! I agree with the America being a Super Power, but it sounds like the shrub wants to be King of the world, and that's wrong.

Either Bush or Kerry is going to win this election! It doesn't matter how many other candidates are on the ballot. You must chose one or the other. Please try to think about every issue, and decide which candidate can do more harm to our future. Then please VOTE!

[lunarboy13]

145. I may be repeating what others have said...but...

John Kerry has long said that Bush "rushed to war" and that when he voted for the resolution it was in the hopes that Bush would let the UN inspectors do their jobs and that -- if necessary -- he would create a large coalition of unified countries to disarm Saddam. This is what Kerry said on the senate floor and it's what he continues to say today.

Well, guess what? Put your brain in gear and follow the logic in this puzzle. If the UN inspectors were permitted to continue their search while at the same time Kerry was using correct and proper diplomacy to build a true coalition, THE WAR WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED!!!! UN inspectors would not have found any WMD, so there would never have been a reason to go to war. Further, the creation of a true coalition may have put more than enough pressure on Saddam to abdicate. In either case, if the US were cooperating fully with the UN by giving inspectors full intelligence briefings, the world would not have turned on us and nothing -- NOTHING -- would have happened the same way it did under the Bush administration.

Another point is the fact that the Bush admin used terror and propaganda to convince the American people that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. This is yet another extremely important difference between the two administrations. Bush was able to get a majority of Americans to support using force. Whereas if Kerry were in office, this lie would never have been propagated and we would have only dealt with Iraq through the UN. Kerry has never had an ongoing "grudge" with Iraq and Saddam. Sure, Saddam is an evil guy, but he's only dangerous to those in and around his box. Many in the Bush Admnin were trying to get Clinton to invade Iraq -- they wanted this war from day one. 9/11 gave them the distraction they needed to perform the slight-of-hand.

If the weapons inspectors were given the time and the intelligence to perform their jobs, the war would not have happened the way that it did. Because there were no WMD.

[sangh0]

148. Waah! Waah!

/

[lukasahero]

149. In which case

welcome to Amerika. W and his f'in fascist regime wins and we lose.

"If Kerry wants to be just like him, what's the point?" - I can't tell you how I have had to live with the memory of so many people saying these exact same words about the 2000 election. I should have spoken up more to them to explain the real differences. The lies and manipulation that W uses to make it seem that way. I should have done more. And I live with knowing that young men and women have died, innocent Iraqi's have died, their children maimed and tortured because I didn't speak up - I didn't say enough that there IS a difference - an ENORMOUSLY HUGE difference - and now people are dead and Amerika is disgraced.

I can't believe that anyone who has been paying attention these last 3+ years can suggest there is no difference between John Kerry and the thief in chief. Bend over Amerika, smile and say thank you while they stick it to you again.

[tedzbear]

150. This is why Kerry may lose the election...

Two mistakes:

1 He voted to authorize the president to go to war. Now that it turns out the war was fraudulent he is on the wrong side of that vote. Makes him look deceptive and hawkish to the left wing vote.

2 Then he voted against the $87 (?) billion funding appropriation for Iraq after the war started. This makes him an easy target for Bush to say Kerry betrayed our soldiers by voting against supplying them with much needed bullet proof vests, etc. This will cost Kerry the undecided (center) vote.

To be a strong candidate, he should have voted AGAINST authorizing war but FOR the appropriation once the war had started.

:kick:

[hippiegranny]

152. puuu-leeeeze

the only way kerry loses now is by dirty tricks from the right. pull yourselves together, folks. nothing is gained by whining about our candidate. let's get those bushfuckers out and then we can worry about keeping kerry on track. enough already. kerry is the nominee and NOTHING is gained by pissing and moaning about what he did and didn't do.

[greensforpeace]

154. Kerry didn't get much of a bump, and is only a few points ahead!

You must be whistlin' past the graveyard on your prediction. We have a serious fight on our hands especially if they somehow "prove" Kerry was never in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968.

Bush is way below average, but to date Kerry has been all over the map. He better get some much needed direction soon.

[The Hair in my Nose]

161. He better get some much needed direction soon.

... like campaigning like a democrat!

This Viet Nam focus is a quagmire. Kerry needs to focus on the economy, jobs, health care, the environment. Instead he is posturing as a gentle general!

Maybe he needs to watch Farenheit 911 again!

[Classical_Liberal]

153. He has promised to get along with the EU better

The EU can apply pressure this way. I wish we had better politicians too, but we don't and he still ain't Bush. Vote! Get drunk if you have to and take a damn cab to the polls but do it.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[TheDonkey]

160. Kerry didn't say he'd go to war, he'd vote for the bill that

was really meant for a barganing tool.

But bush abused that authorization as a decleraction of war rather than increased pressure on Iraq to be upfront .

Kerry should have said he wouldn't have voted to give Bush a blank check again (and he didn't) because he saw first-hand how it was abused.

[drdigi420]

162. amazing misinterpretation

[flaminbats]

164. you are not alone...

More than 60% of eligible voters are registered to vote. Last time the majority of eligible Americans voted in an election was 20 years ago. 1/2 of eligible individuals might vote in the President election, 1/6 vote in the state primaries, and 1/20 participate in runoffs. This means that 1/2 eligible voters don't vote in Presidential elections, 5/6 don't vote in state primaries, and 19/20 don't vote in the deciding runoffs.

No wonder our country is screwed up, if nobody votes..then there is no representation and plenty of taxation!

[agincourt]

165. The vote was reprehensible,

but this is still GWB's war all the way. No bush,no war, it's that simple. If the dems had shown backbone, there still is no telling what this crimminal regime would have done. Vote for Kerry, to help prevent a war with Iran, it's the best we can do.