Help needed to reply to negative Kerry email.

[Beam Me Up]

The below was emailed to me and a bunch of other people by a friend. The email addresses are in the 'to' field so I can 'reply to all' with counterpoints. However, I'm not on top of this particular issue at all. If anyone has advise on how to reply, comments or links to articles that put this in perspective, I'd greatly appreciate them. Thanks in advance. B_M_U

Subject: "dismayed and disappointed"

Dear Friends and Family,

I was very dismayed over a statement made (by Kerry) this past week with regards to his support for the President going to war with Iraq. It is detailed in the letter below that I have sent to the Kerry - Edwards campaign. I still give Kerry my tacit support, but cannot work for his campaign with the same dedication and enthusiasm that I have up to now. I will likely still vote for him in November only because I know that the Bush Administration's policies are purely evil and destructive of our country and the world. It will be the case of voting for the lessor of two evils for me, which I have never done before because it is against my principles and conscience. I have always been an advocate for progressive independent and third party candidates in the past and do vote for truly progressive Democrats as well. I feel very disappointed with Senator Kerry at this point, but I guess that I shouldn't be surprised. It's politics as usual!

Peace,

(name withheld)

Saturday, August 14, 2004

Dear Kerry – Edwards 2004,

This week when Senator Kerry publicly stated that he would have voted to authorize the president to declare war against Iraq even if he had known that Saddam had harbored no weapons of mass destruction, I was both dismayed and confused. Why couldn't he have simply said that Bush and his henchmen distorted the facts and that's why he and so many others voted for the authorization?

I am a member of the Green Party USA, and have been supporting the Kerry – Edwards's ticket. I have even signed up with ACT and MoveOn.org to travel to one of the swing, battleground states to do door to door canvassing to get the Democratic, moderate Republican and Independent vote out for Kerry November 2nd. I have always opposed the war, but have also believed that we need to work, with the world community helping us, to clean up the mess we have created in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Senator Kerry's statement this week about his support of Bush going to war against Iraq even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction or an Al Qaeda connection and complicity in the 9/11 attacks has caused me to lose all respect for Senator Kerry. He is obviously just the garden-variety politician who is willing to say or do anything and compromise stated principles to get a few votes and win victory at any cost.

Since he has "flip-flopped" on this issue how can we trust him once he is in office to deliver on his campaign promises. There are thousands of progressives both within the Democratic Party and outside of the Party who, like me are outraged by Kerry's statement. None of us will support him with the same enthusiasm that we did before. There are many that will probably vote for Nader or the Green Party candidate or perhaps not vote at all. I will still likely cast my vote for the Kerry – Edwards's ticket on November 2nd since I can't allow Bush to have four more years. But you will not get another time or financial contributions from me through the DNC. I will continue to support financially as best I can truly progressive candidates in the Democratic Party across the country as well as supporting progressive organizations both within and outside the Democratic Party that are working to reform the Democratic Party and lead it in a more progressive direction. I will not support "imperialism" under Democrats or Republicans.

I know a lot of people across the country that I have helped organize to vote for Senator Kerry. I will now encourage them to vote their conscience, unless Senator Kerry either retracts his statement or qualifies it in rational and conscientious way. The half of this country's citizens who never bother to vote are much more progressive than Senator Kerry realizes. They don't vote because they cannot see a clear enough distinction between the Democrats and Republicans. They don't bother to even vote for independent or third party candidates. This is because the Democrats and the Republicans have consorted together to pass legislation that makes it so much more difficult for an Independent or third party candidate to even get on the ballot than it is for a Democrat or a Republican, that they have a very slim chance. Is this democracy? I don't think so. We should have the same standard for every potential candidate. We should also have full public financing of all campaigns and elections. This would get big money, powerful lobbies and big corporations out of control of our government and return equal voice to every citizen and make all elected officials truly responsive to their constituents.

I no longer have the desire or motivation to take my time to travel to a swing state to work on getting out the vote. I am a Quaker and a pacifist and cannot fully endorse any candidate that supports preemptive attacks, domination over diplomacy, or the United States policing the rest of the world. I have fought for progressive causes of true democracy, human rights, civil rights, and the environment all of my adult life and will continue to no matter who wins the white house. I know that there are many others like me who are ready to put their lives on the line, go to jail and face persecution in non-violent opposition and civil disobedience against the evils of empire and the violation of human rights, dignity, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I will be circulating this letter far and wide to every person I know and many more that I don't to let my new position be known. I do hope that Senator Kerry wins the election, as I am already well aware of the evils of the Bush Administration and their foreign and domestic policies. But I cannot give my unqualified support to Senator Kerry unless he comes out with either a retraction or an acceptable explanation for making such a foolish statement

Sincerely,

(name and address withheld)

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Kerry's vote was not to go to war.

The vote gave Bush authority to use the full range of options, including war, in dealing with what many thought was a dangerous situation. To do less would have handicapped the President in his dealings, including any attempt to re-open inspections. Remember that Saddam had only submitted to inspections because of the threat of military force. Scott Ritter said that. We needed to give Bush the authorization so that he might negotiate effectively. The point is that Bush then went on to misuse his authorization by going to war as the first option rather than the last one. The wrong decision was made by Bush, not by Kerry.

[Massacure]

2. Not giving the president force means Saddam would have had an empty threat

Everyone knows how he responded to emtpy threats. However, Bush didn't do much threatening. He just attacked.

[F.Gordon]

3. Dear Dismayed and Disappointed

Senator Kerry was put in a lose-lose situation. To say that he would not have voted for the IWR would be morphed into "Now Senator Kerry thinks it would have been a good thing that Saddam remained in power." The bush* - fuck yourself campaign probably had Ads ready to run with that very message.

This lose-lose for Kerry was certainly a win-win for you, wasn't it? It gave you an easy out. It also calls into doubt the sincerity of your convictions. It has been contention for many years that anyone who has to "qualify" their support is, quite often, a lying sack of shit. Not that I'm calling you a lying sack of shit. But if the shoe fits.

Oh, and go cheney yourself and the Green Party you rode in on.

Sincerely,

(someone who is truly committed to getting Kerry elected and won't look for any reason to bail on him)

[Beam Me Up]

5. Although I appreciate your anger, I don't think that will help.

I believe he and people like him need a clear understanding of where Kerry is coming from -- how it is that he gets set up in these lose-lose situations, how he gets quoted out of context, and so on. this is what my friend emailed me this morning:

COBB/LaMARCHE 2004 NEWS RELEASE
http://www.votecobb.org

August 13, 2004

snip
Cobb: If the Press Can Admit They Were Wrong About Iraq, Why Can't John
Kerry?
Bring the Troops Home Now, says the GP candidate

David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate, today reacted to the
admission from yet another major U.S. newspaper that its pre-invasion
coverage of Iraq was skewed and biased in favor of war.

"If the Washington Post and the New York Times can admit they were wrong
about Iraq, why can't John Kerry?" asked Cobb.  Earlier this week, Kerry
said that even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction, he still
would have voted for the congressional resolution which authorized President
Bush to launch the invasion of Iraq.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that it had buried news stories
which questioned claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.  The Post
admitted that its coverage of the issue was "strikingly one-sided" and that
it didn't pay enough attention to those critical of the Bush
Administration's plans.  In May, the New York Times made a similar
admission.

"Dissent is patriotic," said Cobb.  "Our country was founded by dissenters
who insisted on a free press.  The press has let us down but I am proud to
be among the dissenters." /snip

I need to be able to counter this stuff. I live in California where there are lots of people who hold these opinions and if I can't be given ammunition to fight these attitudes and ideas then we're loosing Kerry voters.

[kwolf68]

6. This is a good point

And people need to realize politics is strategy...You can't always say what you really mean so as to give the opponents an opening.

[quaoar]

4. Perhaps this will help

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

The bill authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It also directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Finally, the bill requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.