A HUGE mistake on Kerry's part.

[Joefess]

I think it's a huge mistake for Kerry not to hold Bush accountable for EVERY aspect of the mess in Iraq. His stance on Iraq is way to weak now compared to how he was during the primaries. A week or so ago he stated that his vote would be the same even with knowing everything he knows now. Also his National Security adviser Jamie Rubin has this to say...

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

No WMD, no real threat to anyone but the people of Iraq. I think the American people and our troops would be better served if Howard Dean was the candidate, just becuase of his stance on Iraq. The next day after Kerry said he would vote the same on Iraq, Bush used it and basically said look Kerry agrees with me on Iraq. You don't think this will be brought up in EVERY debate (if Bush shows up)?

Now everyone is stuck in a huge diversion talking about past wounds, past wars, it's silly. You can tell Kerry is trying to play it too safe and not get billed as the anti war candidate again, but all he is doing is letting them off the hook. Also a certain amount of Americans are doing the same, basically treating this as just another election. How can Iraq not be the biggest issue in the history of American politics, and yet some don't even seem to be phased by it.

Anyway... This is my first real post here, so hello everyone. I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just dumb founded that NO ONE is holding them accountable for Iraq. I'm voting Kerry no matter what but more so because I want anyone but Bush.

[Guaranteed]

1. He just can't.

He's not in a position to be doing that.

[blm]

2. You can add your post to the ones we see here twice a week like clockwork

They all go something like this:

Kerry screwed up....anti-war...wish Dean was the nominee....hold my nose to vote for Kerry...blah...blah.

Welcome to the site that has heard it all.

[jonnyblitz]

6. I would be holding my nose for Dean if he were the one , too..

[QC]

19. Yes, as regular as Old Faithful.

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[Capn Sunshine]

26. I wonder how loyal YOUR nose is

Easy from the shrine of Kerry worship to disparage others , but would you venture out doors if someone else were the nominee? Would YOU be holding your nose for Dean?

75% of the party is anti war. Yet we are told to stay quiet.

There's a BIG disconnect here.

[iamjoy]

3. Kerry Was Baited

Bush/Rove baited Kerry then compiled all his seemingly contradictory statements and are now using Kerry's own words against him.

BTW - welcome to DU:hi:

[Joefess]

10. Oh I know he was baited..

I know he was baited, that's for sure. Problem is in this world of 2 second sound bites it will continually be used against Kerry. In the debates it will be used against him and if he diverts from that same answer in the slightest he will be called a flip flopper again. :eyes: So it's a no win situation, unless he was VERY tough on Iraq to begin with.

[iamjoy]

18. Or Very Against The War (Like Dean)

Thing is, Kerry wasn't really flip flopping, he was agreeing to a process and to give Bush credibility. But that doesn't make it into soundbites.

[jedicord]

4. An informed friend and I have argued about the war in Iraq

from the get-go. He just came back from Spain, and instead of being surrounded (as I am) by Texas Republicans who listen to nothing but Rush and Faux, he is now saying we shouldn't have gone. If he can realize that, why can't Kerry?

But for Kerry's part, the statement is out of context. He said that he would have still voted for the resolution, but would have insisted on a guarantee that we insure the threat was there and that we had full international cooperation.

Saddam was trying to make everyone think he was a threat, so not knowing then that he wasn't would lead one to think he was a threat. If we had delved in deeper, let the inspectors come to their final conclusion, gotten total international support, a million to one we would have never gotten into this war. And if we did, it wouldn't have been such a cluster f__k, and the USA wouldn't be seen in such a negative light.

[faithnotgreed]

5. hi joefess. welcome. theres a lot that no one is holding bush

accountable for

it certainly cant be kerrys responsibility alone (or even his sole responsibility) to ask bush to account for all the destruction he has created.
there would be no time to hear anything else, and the media sure isnt interested in that!

keep the faith. john kerry is the man for the job.

[Larkspur]

7. Kerry blew this baited question

and should he be elected Prez this year and order more troops into Iraq to quell a homegrown Iraqi nationalist movement, a la Vietnam, he's going to experience deja vu and be seeing images of himself as LBJ ver 2.0.

[Pastiche423]

8. Why did kerry vote for inspections?

What was happening in the summer into fall of 2002 that warrented inspections?

What changed between the end of Gulf War I, the sanctions, the extreme surveillance of Iraq and the fall of 2002?

[swag]

9. Hi, Joefess, and Welcome to DU

I have a personal weariness and antipathy toward all of the second-guessing, backseat driving, and armchair quarterbacking that happens on DU, but go ahead an knock yourself out.

At this stage of the game, my preference is to support the campaign in any way I can, knowing that they know more than I do about their business and trusting that the campaign is an intelligent and always-learning organism.

[Pastiche423]

11. IOW, blind support

[swag]

12. Well, I can take comfort

in knowing that your intellectual acuity and vast campaign experience is there to guide them along.

[Pastiche423]

14. I said nothing about my experience one way or the other

I merely want questions answered.

It is the responsibility of We, the People to participate in the process of democracy.

Following blindly is not participation.

[swag]

16. I couldn't agree more that debate and citizen participation on the issues

is important.

I couldn't agree less that this stage of the campaign is the time to be picking your own candidate apart. If we don't win in November, there will be precious little debate on the issues, I can assure you.

Best to you. You will obviously do what you need to do to be the best American you can be.

[Pastiche423]

17. One thing I am doing

to be the best American/Oregonian I can be, is to actively campaign against Amendment 36.

Btw, if we can not debate the issues now, what makes you think we will be able to debate them after November no matter who wins??

Peace to you.

[QC]

20. LOL! n/t

[Joefess]

15. It would be hard for me..

It would be hard for me not to second guess things like Iraq or Kerry's stance on Iraq. I think the times we live in almost beg for us to do something, second guess, make REAL changes, admit mistakes, then fix the mistakes. I'm supporting Kerry the best way I know how.

[bonemachine]

13. I don't think so

Remember, he's going for the swing voters, the ones who are undecided. Those of us who have already made up our mind on the War are highly unlikely to defect.

[no name no slogan]

23. This year, there ARE no swing voters

Just look at the non-existant "bounce" Kerry got after the DNC. And look at the polls, which show both candidates at roughly 46% each-- a virtual tie.

Unfortunately, Kerry is ignoring a potential 3-6% on his left-- the vehemently anti-war voters, who will not vote for ANY candidate who supports this war in any way.

And no, I'm not talking about dreadlock-wearing, patchoulli-stinking, hackeysack-playing Phish fans, either. I'm talking about a large group of people of conscience who, for either religious or moral reasons, CANNOT support a president who wants to continue the illegal wars started by the BushCo regime.

Many of these people will vote for Kerry, regardless, but there's still a large percentage who will simply sit this election out, AGAIN, because neither candidate is addressing their concerns about human rights (here and abroad), social and economic justice, and a foreign policy not based on "mine's bigger"-ism.

Unfortunately, Kerry and his operatives continue with their cavalier assumptions that these people have noplace else to go, and therefore "owe" Kerry their vote. That is the same mistake Gore made in 2000, also. Kerry would do his campaign some good and come up with a real plan on getting us out of Iraq, ending our corporate-driven foreign policy, and valuing Main Street over Wall Street.

Who knows... maybe his sudden growth of a backbone will win over those "swing voters" who are simply looking for a candidate with the courage to stand up for what's right, rather than for what looks popular.

[CTLawGuy]

21. welcome!

on this site we do not question the perfection and infallibility of John Kerry, who is both the most progressive candidate ever, and the most able to appeal to swing voters, at the same time.

You must understand that what Kerry voted for in Oct. 2002 was never a war resolution. Any memory you have of it being a war resolution is obviously erroneous. It was a resolution to protect America. Of course our eternally wise candidate was going to vote to protect America. George Bush's cruel war, while not being a mistake, was undertaken improperly. If the war-hero John Kerry were president, he would not have started this war, oh no friends!

You must learn that in order to be a good DUer, you must realize that your views are way out of the mainstream and you must accept that the wise John Kerry, friend of swing voters, will never give credence to your left of center views in public. In order to win, Kerry must guide his ship down the exact center of the political spectrum with the greatest of care.

You may find it ironic that a political party should intentionally not bear the views of its base, but this is the price of victory. The Republicans are in control of all three branches of government. Do you know why? It is because they ignore the views of their base. Their base wants tax cuts, they raise taxes. Their base wants a partial birth abortion ban, and the Republicans charge right for the center and oppose the ban. The base wants to "git Saddam" and the Repubs negotiate peace with Saddam. That is why they win. Democrats are historically weak in that they are poor at ignoring their base. Never fear, Kerry is an expert at finding out what the average Dem wants and running away from it.

Once Kerry has won in 2004, you must do your honorable duty of being ignored for 4 years so Kerry can masterfully be reelected. Again, welcome to DU!

[Cheswick2.0]

22. Sadly much of what you say is true

We will be expected to shut up for four years. I don't plan to. Once I help him get elected I plan to hound him into acting like a democrat.

[Larkspur]

24. Ditto!

I'm sipping the kerry kool-aid now. That lemon flavor is awesome!!!!

[ozone_man]

27. Why wait?

Hound him into being a Democrat NOW. Otherwise a Kerry win may validate the swing voter position and we may perpetuate the Iraq war.

[Mick Knox]

25. it just never ends......