Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[liberalhistorian]

1. So, was the PATRIOT Act "right for the country?"

And the fact that he couldn't see that Iraq posed no threat to us, that it had no connection with Bin Laden, and that Shrub was going to invade Iraq NO MATTER WHAT and that he would manufacture evidence against Iraq if he had to, which he did, shows Kerry for who he really is. And I will NEVER forget his support of the dictatorial, authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-civil liberties PATRIOT Act!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[library_max]

78. "My Candidate Sucks So Bad I Have To Attack Yours"

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

[Cha]

97. We all have our opinions ..that's why we come to this Board..

And this is serious Shyte..so we won't be silenced by your posting that same post that I've seen on other threads! It's called Spamming!

[Octafish]

2. Kerry did what he thought best to protect America

John Kerry is a real Democrat, like FDR and his role model, JFK.

These Democratic Presidents believed in doing all that was necessary to protect America from foreign enemies. We need to have a strong nation to stay a free people. It's how we beat the Fascists in World War 2 and the Commies in the Cold War.

They also believed in doing whatever was necessary to build a better future for ALL Americans at home. That's how we beat the Great Depression and won the race to the moon.

Most importantly: Great post, Pete! Sometimes people don't want to understand. It's no wonder why when Kerry stands — figuratively, of course — so far above the others running in terms of character and on his record.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Oh, I understand all too perfectly!

Kerry is a repuke-lite who is too afraid to truly stand up for all Americans. How did supporting the Iraqi invasion, for that is what it was, help our national security? We've only made Al-Quada's recruitment duties that much easier now. And how, exactly, does the PATRIOT Act, a horrendous misnomer if I ever heard one, help our national security and help us remain "free?" I have yet to hear any explanation on that from those of you supporting Kerry!

[bryant69]

10. Well, actually there have been several

But here's one more.

1. Before the War, and perhaps even now, one could make the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat to the United States. Now it appears that the administration ginned up a lot of that information, but it seemed more credible before the election.

One has to apply the reasonable-ness test. Is it reasonable for someone to have formed a different opinion than me. For example if someone came up to me and said, "I favor Legalizing Marijauna," and presented their argument, I'd say "I think he's wrong, but I can see how an intelligent and good hearted person might come up with that answer." On the other hand if someone said, "I think they should pass out LSD to 15 years old." than that doesn't seem reasonable. Based on the information we had before the war (including misinformation) was Kerry's vote reasonable? I would say yes. The evidence has swung back the other way; but based on what we knew when he took that vote, I can understand how he made that call (not that I agree with it; I think Congress's voting of authority to President Bush was a pretty wrongheaded abdication of their duties.

Frankly you are not going to find a candidate that goes along with every single one of your positions are you (unless you choose to run yourself, and why not?) So you make a call, which candidate fits closest with what you want a democratic candidate to be.

[Walt Starr]

11. The problem is, it WASN'T reasonable

The claims that Saddam was a direct threat to the United States was not credible at all. Kerry chose to be politically expedient rather than to do the right thing.

He now has blood on his hands nad is desperately trying to pull a Lady Macbeth.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

15. Yes, I do

I knew damn well and good the administration was lying. Millions around the world did too. We were out in the streets.

Kerry chose political expediency. He now has blood on his hands.

[bryant69]

21. More to the point

Do you have a Kerry-scope that lets you look into his heart and see exactly why he voted the way he did? You can tell without a doubt that he wasn't duped, but he knew exactly what he was doing and voted because of political expediency?

Or is it just that anybody who disagrees with you must be a rat bastard?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Walt Starr]

23. Okay, if he honestly believed G.W. Bush

Then he is a fool and also undeserving of my vote, EVER.

[sendero]

100. Don't need a scope...

... I don't *care* what was in his "heart". There are only two explanations for the vote and they both SUCK. Spin, spin and more spin will not change that, but if it floats your boat, go ahead.

Kerry has had plenty of opportunities to make amends for that vote. He has chosen not to, in fact he's insisted on throwing gasoline on the fire with stupid shit "get over it" comments. That's all I need to know. Just what we need, more pols (like the Bush* crew) - who when faced with irrefutable evidence they were dead wrong, to "stay the course", and "deny, deny and deny", and "it wasnt me who was wrong, Saddam just hid his weapons real fast".

This is all academic, IMHO, because Kerry is simply not a compelling figure on television or radio. That is what will sink him, not his votes.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

136. It's the way I feel about all of the bloody four

Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards have blood on their hands. They will not receive a vote from me.

Of the other five, I'll take any one of them over any of the bloody four.

[HFishbine]

9. Bottom Line

So, does Kerry think it was right of us to have gone to war against Iraq or not? A direct answer would be nice.

[flpoljunkie]

4. The blame for the Iraq war lies solely with Bush...

Bush acted in bad faith with the Congress, the United Nations and the American people. He lied through his teeth when he repeatedly claimed that "war is the last resort."

Bush has soiled the office of the presidency with his lies; he brings dishonor to the office. He continues to lose credibility with the American people who are slowly waking up to the utter corruption of this administration in all aspects of governance.

[QC]

18. Blaming Republicans for the state of the country?

You won't get far with that attitude! Everyone knows that ideologically impure Democrats are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world!

{sarcasm off}

[Iverson]

5. Understanding it is hardly the issue.

The issue is agreement with it or otherwise a willingness to accept Kerry's (and others') rationale for their vote.

I do not, in either case. There are some very fundamental problems with pre-emptive war, and surely those aren't so hard to understand either.

So you see, it's not a matter of "slamming."

[oasis]

7. "Mr. President, do not rush to war." Kerry clearly admonishes the WH.

Some at DU think Kerry should have stormed the gates. I have a feeling that many weren't going to support Kerry no matter which way he would have voted on Iraq. At least DUers are getting a rest from a lot of the "skull 'n bones" b.s. so I guess the cup's half full.

[sendero]

102. the only admonishment

... that matters is the vote. All of the other happy talk means nothing. If he really wanted to prevent a rush to war, he could have expressed himself with some effect by voting against the resolution.

But that would have been politically risky. Votes are forever, while various comments are not because you can say one thing one day and another the next day and who is to know what you really think?

[Walt Starr]

8. I understanbd it all too well

which is why I will NEVER vote for Kerry.

[GreenArrow]

12. Kerry's got the Madeline Albright syndrome

It makes no difference how many brown skin people die, as long as American foreign policy continues as is, unabated.

JK knew what the price was, and the price, Senator, was not worth it.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[GreenArrow]

22. talk about sanctimony

that liar still flings out "the Sadaam kicked the inspectors out" argument that has been fully discredited. Does he honestly not know any better?

While I don't doubt that Kerry served nobly in Vietman, what does it have to do with his position on Iraq?

His war vote is insupportable. You can rationalize it how ever you like.

[TLM]

94. He's so progressive...

cept when it comes to war.

From pumping rounds into a villiage in vietnam to excitedly pushing the PNAC plan, seems Kerry has a hard-on for slaughtering women and children.

That's not real progressive.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

99. More to the point ..why did Kerry give the vote to bomb them?

I got this off of another thread but I thought it was worth spreading around for all to see!


"SOLDIERS and civilians in Iraq face a health timebomb after dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad."

"Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas."

"Experts estimate that Britain and the US used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of DU during attacks on Iraqi forces"

[TLM]

111. How does my not being there as a human shield...

do anything to change Kerry's support for killing iraqi people?


You attack me for not doing mroe for the Iraqi people, yet you give Kerry, a man with far more power and resources, a pass for supporting their slaughter?

I'm not in a position to do much of anything other than protest, and send some money to causes that will help, yet Kerry had a vote and a voice, and he choice to vote FOR the slaughter and support Bush.

Something I can do for the people of Iraq, is to not vote for the man who supported their slaughter at the hands of his frat brother.

[HPLeft]

148. A Different Take

I didn't support authorizing Bush, and I didn't support this war, although I would have supported an approach that more-or-less followed Kenneth Pollack's timetable - which involved first solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem and truly securing our defenses (like our port cities) at home against terrorism, before to moving on to a truly international humanitarian mission to remove Hussein. I would have even brought "crimes against humanity" charges against Hussein's regime in the Hague, and if they didn't choose to attend in person, try them in absentia - before conducting any military operations.

Are you not troubled by the thought that Hussein was killing more innocent civilians every year than Bush's botched military action did? That he was diverting the oil-for-food revenues to his private projects? Even though I didn't support this war, and I'd like to replace our American boys on the front lines with Bill Kristol, Richard Perle and the rest of their chickenhawk brethren, it's hard to deny that the Hussein family wasn't an outrage to humanity. I think Senator Kerry saw that, and was legitimately concerned about the kind of acts Hussein would have been capable of if he possessed the weapons of mass destruction that the CIA was suggesting he had.

I remember reading stories of how people in Hitler's concentration camps had somehow passed messages to the Allies urging Roosevelt to bomb those camps. Had he done so, Roosevelt would have killed more than a few of the inmates. But those inmates evidently felt it would have been preferable to dying at the hands of the Nazis. I don't know how the average Iraqi feels about our invasion. I know that I don't like the way the American people were manipulated into supporting it, or the psychology of the people who pushed it, or the utterly incompetent way in which the reconstruction has been pursued. But I do respect John Kerry's contention that the world had to be very worried about Saddam Hussein, about what he was doing to his own people, and about what he might do if he were able to acquire the wrong WMDs. It strikes me that pages that history is recorded on are printed with shades of gray, not black on white.

[Cha]

98. So he served in Vietnam! So did a lot People ...that doesn't

exempt them from any wrong doing the rest of their natural life!

There was no "sanctimony" in his statement at all...you are grasping!

[oasis]

17. Take your shots now. Kerry supporters are watching the senator's speech.

Maybe you should watch now too, you may see something you like in our next president. :-)

[Terwilliger]

14. I guess all your anti-war bullshit was just that

you believe in the war and you believe in the warmongers

way to go, Pete :eyes:

[kentuck]

19. Why did they ignore the wise old man, Robert Byrd ?

They just shrugged him off as if his words were from a foolish, senile old man. They ignored him and put no weight upon his warnings. This is the man that knows the Constitution as well as anyone in Washington and he deserved a hearing. At least, they should not have rushed headlong into an obvious affront to our Constitution, ie, the Patriot Act. Rationalize as we will, it was not a wise vote.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. Yes, I would like to know that too

Frankly I think Kerry was just as capable as you and I of figuring out that Byrd was right. He is a very inteligent man. If all his supporters can say is his vote was consistant with his belief that Saddam was a threat, all I can say is he loses my vote on sheer stupidity.
However I think he knew what he was doing and I think it was a political decision.

I think I might just write in Byrd for the primary.

[cosmicdot]

126. Indeed -- Sen. Byrd offered powerful words to stand up for ...

... we rallied to Sen. Byrd offering support ... and, even back then, we asked: 'where are our leaders???

"But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

"Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

"We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe." - Sen. Robert Byrd, 3/19/2003

[Neecy]

20. trying to keep an open mind...

I still haven't decided who to support in the primary season, but I have to admit that these particular votes - particularly the Patriot Act - have me a little wary.

He's an experienced politician and he surely must know (as we did) that putting this kind of power in the hands of the neocons would lead this country on a slippery slope to hell. Unlimited war power, unlimited infringement on the rights of American citizens, just chucked over to the far right without, as far as I can see, any oversight by Congress to date.

When I complained to Dianne Feinstein's office about her vote on the war resolution, I was assured that the Senator believed that the administration would go to the UN for a resolution prior to military action. Guess what? It was a big scam, another Hitler-like Big Lie to the congress and the American people, like the faked intelligence. But guess what? Since the congress voted unlimited wartime power to the chimp and his minions, there's not a damn thing they can do about it now.

I want to hear from Kerry not why he voted for these two bills - he's done that - but why he voted for bills that stripped the congress from any form of checks and balances in the face of what he surely knows is a quasi-facist opponent. Gephardt needs to do the same thing. I won't hold my breath.

[sangh0]

30. They all voted for the PATRIOT Act

If the PATRIOT Act is deal-breaker for you, then you might as well vote for Bush* because no Dem is good enough for you

[HFishbine]

33. Kucinich

supporters would take exception with your innacurate generalization.

[sangh0]

43. True, but

Kucinich has no chance. In the general election, if you can't vote for a Dem who voted for the PATRIOT Act, then your choices will be Bush*, or some "no difference" third-party

[cosmicdot]

127. uh ... "Kucinich has no chance."

... many Democrats disagree ...

[Walt Starr]

130. Kucinich would stand a better chance than Kerry against Bush

IMO.

The bloody four are unelectable as far as I'm concerned.

[angka]

149. agreed,

and if they are electable, i would then question whether the democratic party still reflects my interests.

what we need now is a bonafide repudiation of the illegitimate bush administration. and i'm afraid that also means a repudiation of spineless Democratic collaborators who lacked the courage to challenge bush and his cabal as they set our nation back a century in terms of corruption and foreign policy barbarity.

[CWebster]

34. except

Russ Feingold, who Byrd subsequently praised.

And yeah, the Democrats have not been "good enough"--that is part and parcel of the problem.

[sangh0]

44. Breaking News

Feingold isn't running.

[CWebster]

52. A revelation

Kerry is.

Feingold's advantage.

[liberalhistorian]

40. Dean most certainly was NOT in favor of the PATRIOT Act,

or the war resolution, and spoke out loud and long against both! Now, I know you think that because he wasn't a senator or congressman that that doesn't count, but that's bullshit! Dean saw right through the administration from the beginning.

[sangh0]

41. So he said

but talk is cheap. When he had a job, he never met a war he didn't like or approve of.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. In September 2001, Dean Was Attacking The Patriot Act?

Link please.

[blm]

151. Not true.

Dean said on July, 2002 Meet the Press that he tended to "agree with the president" on the curtailing of some civil rights. He, himself, also brought up the idea that some civil rights should be curtailed 3 days after 9-11.

Last fall, he supported the Biden-Lugar version of the Iraq War Resolution, which still called for use of military force to disarm Saddam. We would STILL be in Iraq with that version. He managed to forget that support when the antiwar crowds grew. In fact, if B-L had passed, Dean would be considered a warmonger here at DU. That is, with the ideologically consistent posters.

[Neecy]

54. uh-huh

Telling me to "vote for Bush" is a great way to bring someone over to your side.

I'm expressing concerns that many have about Kerry, but I haven't written him off. My entire goal is to get Bush and his henchmen out of Washington, and if Kerry is the most viable candidate - and he might be - then he'll get my support despite my distaste for how he handled his reponsibilities to the public and to the congress itself.

I strongly believe that four more years of Bush will destroy this country and flippantly telling me to vote for * doesn't do much for your cause or your candidate.

[sangh0]

64. Then read it again

and then explain how NOT voting for the Dem nominee is anything BUT a vote for Bush*. Then explain how misportraying the Dems votes (hint: the PATRIOT does nothing to weaken our "checks and balances". It's legislation, and can be repealed, unlike the Constitution, which is difficult to amend), helps elect anyone besides Bush*

[Walt Starr]

69. I can debunk one of your statements

explain how NOT voting for the Dem nominee is anything BUT a vote for Bush*.

This is the simplest thing in the world to debunk. There is only one way to vote for Bush. You must actually cast your vote for Bush. Voting for any other candidate, or not voting at all, is NOT voting for Bush, it is voting for a candidate other than Bush or not voting at all.

Pretty simple.

[Neecy]

74. excuse me....

But exactly where in the Patriot Act are the checks and balances? Who exactly is going to initiate legislation to repeal it? Kerry?

If you think the Patriot Act hasn't been abused in practice - as we predicted it would in theory - than I suppose we have very different ideas of what constitutes democracy.

And read my post again, and tell me where I stated that I wouldn't vote for the our nominee. Hysteria won't take you far.

[sangh0]

144. You're excused

but it's the *CONSTITUTION* that has the "checks and balances", not individual pieces of legislation. This is PoliSci 101.

If you think the Patriot Act hasn't been abused in practice - as we predicted it would in theory - than I suppose we have very different ideas of what constitutes democracy.

The Miranda warning is abused in practice. Lineups are abused in practice. The questioning of witnesses is abused in practice. Confessions are abused in practice. Jury selections are abused in practice. Everything is abused in practice, but we haven't repealed our entire system of justice because we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And read my post again, and tell me where I stated that I wouldn't vote for the our nominee. Hysteria won't take you far.

You missed one of my points, which is, if you support the Dem nominess, whoever it is, then why make an issue out something that:

a) can't be changed
b) had no effect on the invasion, or on whether there was an invasion
c) can only hurt the Dem nominees chances, no matter who that nominee turns out to be

Or is voting Dem the only way you can support the Democratic Party?

[Neecy]

152. excuse me again

But by passing this legislation, the congress ceded their CONSTITUTIONAL oversight authority. You can spare me the smug lecture on PoliSci 101.

If you're fine with Ashcroft's abuse of the Patriot Act, then you're fine with it. No argument there.

I'm an American before I'm a Democrat and if what I consider to be an un-American act is passed on a bipartisan basis I'll still oppose it. I've worked for national and state campaigns, I've donated money to both the party and to individual candidates, and I'm well versed on how to support the Democratic Party. If I limit my participation to voting, then one might suppose that the party has deserted me and not the other way around.

[Andy_Stephenson]

61. Jim McDermott stood up against the

Patriot Act.

[jiacinto]

95. That's the point Sangha

Unless the candidate is Karl Marx himself, for some people, no Democrat is going to be enough for them.

[Neecy]

113. Karl Marx?

So now you have to be a communist to oppose the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq?

Get a grip. Grow up.

[Walt Starr]

131. Carlos usually pulls out the commie pinko rhetoric

when people have honest disagreements with reichwing agendas being pushed by Democrats.

[sangh0]

145. That's not what he said

He said you had to be a commie to get some DUers support because for some, the slightest deviation from leftist doctrine is inexcusable.

And, as much as some like to confuse the issue, the issue here is not the actual invasion of Iraq; It's the vote on the resolution, which had no hope of preventing the invasion.

One can oppose the invasion but not oppose a Yes vote on the resolution.

[OrdinaryTa]

153. Slight Deviation

slightest deviation from leftist doctrine is inexcusable

Voting for war is not a slight deviation from humane values, Sangha. It's a total betrayal. Vote for Kerry and you'll get more of it. His whole career has been measured and manicured. This is not leadership, it's poll watching.

Kerry's vote for the war was inexcusable. But I'm not trying to convince you. Vote for him if you like! I'm definitely not voting for him, even if he's the Democratic nominee. You know the old joke: I wanted a shaggy dog, but not that shaggy.

[Cha]

101. The poster didn't say only the "Patriot Act" ..It was the Iraqi

Resolution, too! Read Carefully!

[killbotfactory]

24. He agreed that Iraq was not an imminent threat...

And that there was no reason to invade, and yet he voted for and supported the Iraq war anyway. When we were on a clear path to victory he was pleased as punch to mention his support for war. Sorry, I'm not impressed with him.

[Starpass]

25. Ya' know what war I'm really, real interested in????

...the one GWB is going to wage on this nation when he is re-elected and has nothing to hold him back. And, that will come to pass if the Dems do the thing they are best at: shooting their own goddamn stupid foot off. If we can't start thinking and picking a candidate that will half way appeal to that big block of American voters who are not repuke, and not into the nuiances of every fart fired from the buttocks of every politician, we will lose an election that is becoming more and more doable. It's all in the hands of the primary Dem voter-----. There is a lot of shit on the hands of all these politicians because they didn't get where they are by keeping their legs together and being a virgin. If virginity is a litimus test, then none of our nine come even remotely close. Some are known better because they performed on the national stage; others can keep their secrets hidden longer because they didn't. There are definitely going to be more wars 'cause George the fucking ass has pushed the world into a tailspin----so even the guys you think are the ultimate Dove's are going to have to act eventually in a way that will cause some to have the 'vapors'.

[Dhalgren]

26. The problem was not, essentially whether Saddam was

a threat or not. There are a lot of "threats" to America around the world (more now than in 2000). The problem was ignoring Byrd and others who warned against Congress aborgating their authority and turning over all control of action to Bush. For some reason Kerry, Kephardt, Edwards and others felt that it was o.k. to trust Bush in this matter - why? What good did it serve to hand over that kind of blank check to Bush? "I felt that Saddam was a threat" - so what? Don't simply turn over everything to Bush and say, in essense "I trust the President completely", which is what Kerry and other Dems did. Every Dem who voted in favor of the "war" resolution, has to explain why they thought it was "good" to aborgate their authority, against the admonitions of Sentator Byrd and others.

[angka]

27. between voting for the patriot act and voting for war,

alot of candidates are—despite all their protests and those of their subordinates—stripped of their credibility. too bad for them, maybe they should have considered not selling out.

and don't spin me, it wasn't a 'set of actions to be authorized blah de blah,' every one of them knew exactly what the game was, and exactly what bush would do with a congressional rubber-stamp. bush used kerry's vote to flout the international community, claim that the american 'people' are with him, and go to fucking war. period.

[angka]

141. NO EXCUSES for kerry bump

nt

[eileen from OH]

28. I understand what you are saying. . .

And I will certainly concede that Kerry voted in good faith for the war. But it's what happened AFTER the vote and BEFORE the war that bothers me. When it became apparent that Bush had no intention of putting together a real coalition, when it became apparent that we were going in, when it became apparent that the Congress had been snookered, and - to use your own words. . .

when it became apparent that the "list of conditions" was NOT being satisfied, why didn't he turn against it THEN? Maybe he did, but I sure don't remember it.

And why NOW, does he not admit it was a mistake to vote for it, and a mistake to go in?

Either he still thinks we were right to go in or it wasn't. That's the muddle from my point of view.

eileen from OH

[HFishbine]

31. Exactly

"Either he still thinks we were right to go in or it wasn't. That's the muddle from my point of view."

Exactly Eileen!

What Kerry need to tell us is what is his opinion now? Was it right to have gone to war against Iraq? (Still waiting...)

[sangh0]

35. Kerry did "turn against it then"

He said "Mr. President, do not rush to war." amongst other things.

[HFishbine]

37. Inadequate

Kerry's position is going to remain open to accusations of being muddled until one can clearly answer, "does he think it was right that we went to war with Iraq?"

The fact that no one can provide a definitive answer is further illustration that his position remains unclear.

[sangh0]

50. Not true

You can keep repeating that Kerry hasn't criticized the war until the cows come home, but that won't change it into a fact.

[HFishbine]

59. I'm not repeating anything

Your deflection from the question at hand further reveals Kerry's weakness on this issue.

Once again: "Does Kerry think it is right that we invaded Iraq?" Geez, such a simple question; that there is so much difficulty providing an answer is telling.

[sangh0]

146. Sure you are

and so I'll repeat that Kerry has criticized Bush*'s invasion on a number of grounds.

[killbotfactory]

42. "I supported Bush disarming Saddam"

Kerry at the SC debate.

I wonder why he gets accused of waffling?

[sangh0]

53. So what?

Kerry has been calling for the disarming of Saddam for years. "Disarming" and "invading" are not the same.

[killbotfactory]

56. It was to Bush

And Kerry made no distinction.

[angka]

143. oh the hair splitting bullshit

it would be totally insufferable if it wasn't also laughable.

kerry voted for war. he can backpeddle all he wants, it will not change the facts. the only thing that will save him now is an apology for that vote (and for the patriot act) in clear, doublespeak-free terms.

[Terwilliger]

49. amongst other things, like "Bush is a good man"

:nuke:

[Andy_Stephenson]

66. "trying to do good"

:puke:

[DrFunkenstein]

128. You Two Are No Better Than Ann Coulter

Taking an aside comment, taking it out of context, and magnifying it to represent something diabolical.

:yourock:

[sangh0]

147. Two can play - DEAN SAID

Bush wasn't lying about Saddam's WMD's. Dean also said that he would be surprised if Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's

So when will Dean announce his shock?

[JVS]

142. As you said upthread, talk is cheap

[MadHound]

29. So, according to your first two reasons

His war vote shows both a lack in morals, and a lack in judgment. Not a good thing to have in a candidate. Look, according to all of the best intelligence BEFORE the Congressional vote(including a 1998 CIA report freely available to everybody) Iraq was no threat to us or anybody else. If he had any WMD, it was very small quantities and no real threat to us or his neighbors.

The rest of your reasons are just waffling on Kerry's part or semantics on your part. Don't try to tell me that his vote wasn't a vote for war. If that authorization had been voted down, we wouldn't have gone to war. Kerry and others simply gave their blessings to the process. As far as Kerry "warning" Bush, and "criticizing " Bush, well, that's just political backpedaling as he sees his war vote coming back to bite him in the ass.

Add these blunders to the fact that he is one of the DLCs boys, well, he simply looks like another corporattista to me. Sorry, no vote. If he gets the nod next year, I'll be voting Green. Kerry isn't the answer to our problems and acts like he doesn't even know what the question is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. My take:

1. I concur.

2. I concur, it is well within the realm of possibility.

3. He did, but with what consequence? "I'll be mad at you!" :wtf:

4. Wrong. There were no conditions set for war to be declared. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-02-iraq-resolution-text_x.htm Read it and show me one example of where there are pre-conditions set. I've read this document a dozen times. The first half of the resolution is a list of "considered facts" all beginning with "Whereas." None of this section requires, it only suggests. The second half is the empowering part, or, iow, the "blank check" part.

5. It's possible but he is walking a very fine line.

[demnan]

36. I respect Kerry

and if he's the nominee I'll support him, but I do think it's ironic that here is a guy who is a war hero and then came back from Vietnam to oppose the war. As a Senator, his vote assisted Bush in starting his war against Iraq and now Kerry opposes the war.

Now listening to this speech of his where he talks so much about the military, I think Kerry has a love/hate relationship with the military. I think he's sincere, but like so many men, I feel his first response is combat because he feels comfortable with that culture. I don't mean to denigrate him as a man, after all, I come from a military family myself, it's just an observation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

38. What conditions?

4. HIS VOTE WAS NOT A 'VOTE FOR WAR', IT WAS A VOTE ON A SET OF ACTIONS TO BE AUTHORIZED BASED ON A LIST OF CONDITIONS BEING SATISFIED.

Here is a link to the resolution:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Now can you point to this "list of conditions" that you are talking about?

The only requirements that I can see are:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

He has to report to congress that he has decided:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

That diplomatic or peaceful means will not protect the US from Iraq or ensure that UN resolutions are enforced, and:

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That attacking Iraq will not interfere with the "War On Terror".

He accomplished these two "conditions" by not seeking a vote in the UNSC, and by claiming that attacking Iraq was itself a part of the "War on Terror".

In fact, both conditions had been met before the vote was even put to congress. So the fact is, Kerry DID vote for war, and all your spinning is no different to Kerry's own spinning.

Did Kerry vote to break Sen. Byrd's attempted fillibuster of this resolution, or was he in support of Byrd? I can guess the answer...

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[welshTerrier2]

39. Not Good Enough, Pete

Here's the bottom line on Kerry and Iraq ...

I have no problem with your statement that Kerry did what he thought was right ... fine ... and I have no problem with your other statements either ...

and I do not characterize Kerry's positions on Iraq as a "muddle" ...

HOWEVER, I do characterize them as dead wrong and as demonstrating a lack of judgment and leadership ...

Kerry, himself, acknowledged that Saddam did not pose an "imminent threat" to the U.S. ... this must be the standard set before we go to war ... and it should probably be the standard for acting without U.N. authorization to go to war in Iraq ...

Then there's the matter of Powell's presentation to the U.N. ... I watched it ... I didn't believe a word of it ... we all understood that bush and his PNAC'er buddies were pushing this agenda and we all knew they would do or say whatever was required to invade Iraq ... was there even one single word of truth in the evidence Powell presented???????????? Kerry described it as "strong evidence" ... that's not being muddled ... it's being blind !!! how could he have been so trusting of such evil men ?? he should never have voted for a resolution that required him to "trust" that bush would exhaust all possible diplomatic means first and use war only as a last resort ... we all knew that bush planned to invade Iraq no matter what happened ... be it legal or symbolic, Kerry should have said "no war until proof of an imminent threat exists" ... he should not have voted to give bush what he wanted in the Iraq resolution ...

And finally we come to the matter of "post-war" Iraq ... Kerry has done a fine job criticizing bush for misleading the american people ... no problem there ... but he stops far too short of the critical point ... and what is the critical point ??? the critical point is that the war was not justified because the evidence used to justify it was a pack of lies ... it was propaganda ... but Mr. Kerry just will not say the words ... he will not acknowledge that BECAUSE BUSH LIED, THE WAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ...

I'm sorry you're fed up with those who continue to criticize Kerry ... the point, at least my point, is not to "bash" and to "criticize" Kerry personally ... the point is to condemn him for the harm his actions and inactions have caused ... the war has already cost thousands of lives and has poured gasoline on the fires of terrorism in the middle east ... and kerry did nothing to prevent this from occurring ... his Iraq vote and continued failure to condemn bush's war is nothing Kerry should be proud of ... he should have been the leader of the loyal opposition ... instead, he went along with bush ...

Let's not forget the ominous words of Senator Byrd regarding the Iraq Resolution: Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

[w4rma]

45. Liberman and Gephardt pushed that awful bill that gave Smirk a blank check

Kerry and Daschle were trying to push for a more restrictive bill. They were undercut by Lieberman and Gephardt at the Rose Garden photo-op with Bush. Kerry voted for that bill despite his misgivings because he didn't think he'd be able to explain his anti-Iraq war position to the American people.

Kerry says that his vote was one of conscience. He says that Bush lied to him about the nuclear weapons, WMDs, ability to attack America within 45 minutes, etc., etc. Kerry says that he still supports the invasion because doing so got Saddam out of power. Kerry's stated position seems to be that he would have supported an invasion of Iraq for the sole purpose of ousting Saddam. That is Lieberman's position, also.

So, once you cut through all the "muddle", isn't Kerry's position exactly the same as Lieberman's position?

[Terwilliger]

58. both wrong

and, fer cripes sakes, you're using the notion that he was fooled as a defense. How the fuck long has Kerry been in government service?

Kerry voted for that bill despite his misgivings because he didn't think he'd be able to explain his anti-Iraq war position to the American people.

So, even with all his experience, he couldn't arrive at an opposition position because he couldn't adequately explain it to the American people? Well then *BZZZZZZZZZT* you're fired. Go para-sailing.

[CWebster]

62. AGAIN

Byrd and Kennedy drew up a second resolution in an attempt to address the rash vote of the first one--after Bush pursued his rush to war. It would've allowed Kerry cover but he refused to sign on. He cast his lot.

When it comes down to it, what concerns Kerry the most in his bid, is to show-up Bush in the militaristic macho department as a measure of leadership priority. Pure bravado.

[BurtWorm]

48. Not so hard to understand at all.

He was covering his ass. Having his cake and eating it. It's not muddled at all. It's clear, sharp-focused political calculation.

PS: I will vote for Kerry if he is the nominee, and I wish him well, but this vote was a travesty.

[DrFunkenstein]

51. Clear This Up, Dean Supporters

I put this in the Campaign forum, but it clearly applies here:

I'll agree that the media seems incapable of putting 2+3 together. But Kerry's position is easily defended. One of the big misunderstandings Liberal Oasis has is how those mass graves got filled. Saddam Hussein pretty much ended the (insanely) bloody border war with Iran by threatening to use chemical weapons. Iran flinched, and Saddam was free to turn his attention to the Kurdish population in the North. Saddam then proceeded to kill whole urban areas with chemical weapons. One moment they had a bad taste in their mouth, the next moment they were dead. Corpses littered the streets in the first major use of chemical weapons ever.

After the Gulf War, Saddam signed a UN peace treaty that demanded he submit to unfettered inspections (UNSCOM). For several years, despite brutal sanctions (which Kerry came to oppose), Saddam jerked around UNSCOM, even forcibly detaining them at one point. Although they had many successes, ultimately they were pulled out to begin Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Since then, all intelligence has come from satellites and exile testimony.

Saddam had been in the process of putting together a nuclear program. Ironically, if he had not invaded Kuwait, he might have suceeded. It was no secret that Saddam wanted to become a nuclear power, especially after successfully deterring Iran with chemical WMDs. Saddam maintained his nuclear scientists, and continued to search for means of advancing his program. Before the vote, Kerry maintained that Saddam had the desire but not the means - not for a couple years, absent a foreign supplier.

Let me make this clear. Kerry did NOT believe Iraq was an imminent threat, even with the intelligence (later proved incorrect) he was given. This where Liberal Oasis in confused. Although he did not pose an imminent threat, Saddam Hussein had a record of instability and miscalculation, and a proven willingness to obtain and actually use WMDs.

In the post-9/11 world, Kerry argued, following a policy of containment (Dean's argument at the time, later retracted) was simply unacceptable. We needed truly unfettered inspections, and -given Saddam's history - the threat of force was the only effective means of achieving this. This was Kerry's argument in 1997, it is his argument today.

About a month after the IWR vote, Hans Blix and UNMOVIC were on the ground. Although largely compliant, Saddam continued to petty obstructions about Presidential Palaces and interviewing scientists. Kerry argued for giving the inspections time, and building a coalition based on America's good intentions. Everyone wanted Saddam disarmed, but Bush's insistence on talks of invasion, regime change, and pre-emption (rightly) brought great opposition.

Including from Kerry. While he was forceful about the need for disarmament, he vocally opposed Bush's unnecessary and harmful war talk. Although ultimately Saddam's games allowed it, the invasion was unnecessary and on the eve of war Kerry was still asking for at least 30 more days.

The confusion for Liberal Oasis, I suppose, revolves around their inability to comprehend the support of disarmament despite faulty intelligence. I don't think it is that difficult to understand.

Was war a good thing? No, it was unnecessary, at least at that point. Was disarmament a necessity? Absolutely. Even Dean conceded that after realizing containment was insufficient. Does the abscence of WMDs destroy the rationale for unilateral invasion? Yes. The rationale for disarmament? Kerry doesn't think so, and neither should Dean.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

57. I hate to say it, Pete, but you asked for it.

This vote pushed a lot of buttons, including mine. (But I will vote for Kerry if he is nominated.)

[DrFunkenstein]

65. Are You A Pavlov Dog?

Does the vote blind you to the fact that Dean's position (once he flip-flopped from continment) is EXACTLY THE SAME as Kerry's? I'm happy that Dean would have voted "no," but that doesn't prove he has what it takes to lead America. Kerry laid out exactly what should have been done, while Dean was content to criticize.

Dean's foreign policy is full of good sentiments about progressive internationalism, but Kerry has an actual agenda. Dean just isn't that strong on foreign policy. I don't think he is the anti-Christ - in fact, he is my second choice - but he just isn't in the same league on this issue. One vote doesn't make a leader. Lots of people voted "no." Why shouldn't they be President?

[ibegurpard]

68. Why are you trying to make this about Dean?

My distaste for Kerry and my support of Dean are not cause and effect.

[DrFunkenstein]

76. Because Except For The IWR Vote

The only thing separating them on foreign policy is Kerry's depth and vision. I was trying to clear that up for you.

[BurtWorm]

75. I don't think Kerry is the anti-Christ either

In fact he's my second choice. I thought I made it clear this wasn't enough of a sin for me to chuck him over. But it is a sin, and it doesn't make sense to try to paint it as a virtue.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. You're Free To Disagree With His Decision

Does that mean I can't try to clear up the issue? I'm sorry for singling you out, you seem a reasonable chap, but alot of Dean fans reject Kerry for reasons that just don't hold up. If they knew all the facts, then disagreed, that'd be cool. But there is alot of distortion going on regarding this issue.

As you said, this is a hot button issue, and I wanted to make it's context perfectly clear. Sorry if the title of my post sounded too aggressive (in hindsight, it does and it wasn't my intention).

[BurtWorm]

86. I'm not an ideological purist

But I don't like political expediency. My bottom line on the Iraq war vote: did it serve to legitimize an illegitimate regime? I can't see how a vote for it did anything but that. I think Kerry is too soft on Bush's illegitimacy. But I'll vote ffor him if he's nominated.

[DrFunkenstein]

88. What Does "Expediency" Mean To You?

Kerry did not vote for political gain. He voted based on the same principles he held since 1997. He was a vocal critic of Bush throughout the process - before the vote, during the build up, on the eve of war, during the war, and during the aftermath. He doesn't have the same fiery style as Dean, but he was still forceful about Bush's incompetence at every stage (even during Afghanistan).

[dkf]

83. All I know is that Dean is saying we shouldn't have gone to war.

This is NOT what Kerry is saying. Kerry is saying he supports this war. They obviously do not have the same position now.

I know for a fact that Dean was saying that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in October 2002. I don't recall hearing this from Kerry.

[DrFunkenstein]

87. See Post #51, Kerry Said It Was Rushed

But Saddam's screwing around about Presidential Palaces and interviewing scientists gave Bush the opportunity he needed. On the eve of war, Kerry was still calling for 30 days. See post #51 for more details.

Spelling edit.

[TLM]

106. That's not true at all...

"Does the vote blind you to the fact that Dean's position (once he flip-flopped from continment) is EXACTLY THE SAME as Kerry's?"

No it wasn't.

Dean's position hasn't changed. He said we should contain saddam, rather than invading and taking over the country, as Kerry supported. Dean said the use of force would only be OK under certian circumstances, none of which have been the case.

Also Dean said that we needed the UN behind any troop actions. And in fact, Kerry's camp viciously attacked Dean for his position.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

"Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier. "

[DrFunkenstein]

138. Identical

1. He would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, he would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. He would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.

Whose position is this?

[Walt Starr]

139. It damn sure isn't Kerry's!

Kerry voted to give the Whistle Ass Carte Blanche in Iraq, it doesn't mean shit what he says to try and hedge his bets over it, the man caved and gave this administration unprecedented power to declare war on Iraq with no strings attached.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

109. Funk, I'M the Pavlov D-O-G

Or hadn't ya seen my name? :P

[Terwilliger]

63. you're not accepting of the constructive criticism

I think you've been at DU as a Kerry supporter all along...you came to the board looking all "anti-war" and outraged...but then you started apologizing for the war resolution vote, then you were saying how bad Bush is, now you're saying Kerry was lied to and that excuses everything...

Yeah. Very convenient.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

79. Pretty interesting, because I believe exactly the opposite

I DON'T THINK DEAN CAN WIN. I THINK KERRY CAN.

I am precisely 180 degrees out of sync with you on this, and I alos honestly believe that my decision not to vote for Kerry in the general election will have no effect on who wins that race because I honestly believe he stands absolutely no chance against Bush. My choice to vote for a third party candidate should Kerry be nominated, however, can have a good outcome if enough people feel like I do and vote third party. It could serve to begin legitimizing third party candidacies which can only help the Democratic PArty in the long run.

It's my long haul approach to reforming the Democratic Party.

[CWebster]

84. Yes, of course

all the evidence is pointing in this direction.

And just what makes Kerry preferrable to Bush? Bush resonates more with the dumbed-down, while Kerry is aloof and boring, Bush looks stupid, Kerry looks scary. Does Kerry think his tough-guy soldier act appeals to the Democratic base or the swing voters who he just alienated with his NRA crack? Just who is he trying to target? Does he have a clue?

[Cha]

105. Well I think Dean can win and I don't think Kerry can win!

[Iverson]

91. Animosity? Ravishing?

not from me, and not from all respondents

[OrdinaryTa]

108. A Defining Issue

Kerry voted for the war resolution in the interest of his own career. There was nothing noble about it. He did it to save his ass.

Senators have the obligation to assess the character and motives of the people to whom they grant authority - it's one of the important functions of the Senate. In giving Bush a blank check to wage war as he saw fit, Kerry ignored the kind of man Bush is. You don't have to know a lot about Bush to know he loves killing. He gets off on it! He chuckled about ignoring Karla Faye Tucker's pleas for her life. Her statements are heartbreaking - she admits everything - and Bush actually laughed at them. http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/page1/98/01/21/excerpts.3-0.html

Colonial wars are barbaric, a throw-back to the 19th century. This is an issue like slavery or child soldiering. There's no way to vote strategically for any of these things. No to slavery. No to child soldiering. No to colonial wars. And NO to people who support these things. Kerry is simply not eligible for my vote. If there are no other choices than Bush or Kerry, I'll stay home.

[angka]

150. i respect you

but i had no choice but to respond to your point #4, which was the really weak one. the other arguments you made point to the real truth (which you should be able to deal with): kerry voted to let the bush administration go to war in iraq if it decided to—and he knew they were going to. simple. maybe damaging to kerry in the objective light of history; i'm afraid you'll have to deal with that, too.

[DrFunkenstein]

60. The "Political Expediency" Argument Shot Down

Kerry in 1997:

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.”

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

Kerry maintained this position throughout, and still holds this position. He has been absolutely consistent. Dean, on the other hand, waffled from containment (Iraq is too weak to worry about) to disarmament after he secured the anti-war vote.

If anyone is being expedient, it is Howard Dean.

[Terwilliger]

67. Kerry is skull and bones

maybe he's actually working for Bush...ya never know!

Kerry, like all his Democratic bretheren, knew exactly what Saddam Hussein was all about...and I'm not talking abot 1997...I'm talking about 1958. 1963 and 68. 1979 when Saddam claimed total power, and months later when he "mysteriously" attacked Iran. Kerry knew in 88 when Saddam was using the gas weapons against civilians. Sure, even the Democrats feigned ooutrage over Saddam's actions, but thats all the while they were standing on the receipts for the munitions, training, and installation. All the while they knew of the active market, fostered by the USA, of guns and other munitions openly being "sold" to both Iraq and Iran during their war.

Kerry and the Democrats knew all of this. They should all hang their heads in shame.

[DrFunkenstein]

71. Is This When Kerry Nearly Had Reagan Impeached For Iran/Contra?

Kerry used an Oct. 10, 1986 hearing to interrogate Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams about whether the Reagan administration had involved foreign governments in arming the contras.

Elliott Abrams: "I can say that while I have been assistant secretary, which is about 15 months, we have not received a dime from a foreign government, not a dime, from any foreign government."

Senator Kerry: " `We' being who?"

Abrams: "The United States."

Senator Kerry: "How about the contras?"

Abrams: "I don't know. But not that I am aware of and not through us. The thing is, I think I would know about it because if they went to a foreign government, a foreign government would want credit for helping the contras and they would come to us to say you want us to do this, do you, and I would know about that."

This testimony, and similar statements to a House committee, would result in Abrams pleading guilty to charges of withholding information from Congress. (He was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, and now serves in the Bush White House.)

A few weeks later, the White House disclosed that funds from the sale had been diverted to supply the contras.

Suddenly, Kerry's theories didn't seem so far-fetched. He hoped this would be his moment to help lead the investigation into this extraordinary episode. The Iran-contra scandal was the top story in town, and there was worried talk in the halls of Congress that the United States might suffer another failed presidency.

But when congressional leaders chose the members of the elite Iran-contra committee, Kerry was left off. Those selected were consensus-politicians, not bomb-throwers.

The feeling among a disappointed Kerry and his staff was that the committee members were chosen to put a lid on things. "He was told early on they were not going to put him on it," Winer recalls. "He was too junior and too controversial . . .. They were concerned about the survival of the republic."

Even some Democrats "thought John was a little hotter than they would like," says Rosenblith.

As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership gave Kerry chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and a charter to dig into the contra-drug connection. While disappointed, Kerry stuck with his investigation and the subcommittee published a report in 1989 that concluded the CIA and other US agencies had turned a blind eye to drug trafficking occurring on the fringes of the contra network. In many cases, traffickers were using the same airplanes, airfields, and other resources that the contras were using.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

[reachout]

77. I'm willing to accept...

that Kerry voted for the war resolution in good conscience. He has been a hawk on Iraq for a long time, and his position seems consistent.

As for the Patriot Act, from the time of its introduction unitl it passed the House and Senate, there is no possibility that anyone read and considered all of its provisions. As such, I strongly believe that many votes cast for it were kneejerk votes with very little deliberation. What does that say about the people who voted for it? It says things that I'm not comfortable with in an elected representative.

All that being said, there are voters like myself who cannot in our own good conscience vote for someone who voted for both of these pieces of legislation, regardless of their motivation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. "Political Expediency" rises from the ashes and flies again!

"Unobserved and unimpeded?!" lol. He was surrounded by US forces. Subject to no-fly zones. Under constant satellite surveillance. Surrounded by militarily superior countries. The fact is: Iraq was thoroughly contained prior to the Iraq War.

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

In another post you said that Kerry didn't feel that SH was an imminent threat. (I'll link to it if you want, it's in GD and P&C). Which one is it? He should have voted "Yes" on Biden-Lugar, if it were allowed to come to the floor, and "No" on the IWR.

[DrFunkenstein]

81. Rummy, Even Dean Concedes That Containment Wasn't Enough

You are not on the same boat as Dean. Containment was Dean last year. This year, he supported disarmament. I know you are familiar with the quotes, so I won't bother fetching them.

[killbotfactory]

89. Disarmament does not mean invasion

Disarmament through UN inspectors was part of the containment process.

[DrFunkenstein]

103. Do You Understand What These Terms Signify?

Containment was the argument that Iraq was so weakened that things could continue as they were. Most people argued this based on Iraq's "national sovereignty." Why do the Americans need to stick their nose in Iraq's business? Worry about yourself first. Containment was suggesting the possibility of inspectors without the use of force. Absent an imminent threat, there was no need to aggravate the situation.

Disarmament was the active threat of force to ensure that all weapons were accounted for and destroyed. By threat of force, that means the threat of invasion. The UN inspectors (UNMOVIC) were not allowed into Iraq until AFTER the threat of force was put in place. A few months later, Dean had switched from passive containment to arguing for the threat of force, but as a last resort - just like Kerry.

We have had this conversation before. I'm not sure why you are still confused.

[TLM]

115. Wrong... but nice try...

Containment is simply keeping Saddam within Iraq, and leaving Saddam in power rather than taking over the country.

Disarming Iraq was an on-going process of inspection that could elevate to use of force if certain factors were present, namely proof of Iraq having weapons and their refusal to destroy them.

However at no time would disarming Iraq rise tot he level of invasion and taking over the country.


Dean supported the process to disarm Iraq through the UN, and supported a policy of containment as opposed to invasion and taking over Iraq.


Kerry supported invasion, take over, and regime change.

Dean supported inspections, disarmament, and containment.

Not the same policy at all.

Next?

[DrFunkenstein]

120. What Have You Been Smoking?

Containment is not the opposite of regime change. Kerry opposed regime change. Kerry said that the only reason for unilateral invasion was an imminent threat - and said there WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT. The only reason for multilateral invasion was the exhaustion of peaceful, diplomatic means.

I guess if you get caught up in the Dean echo chamber, these things get distorted.

Containment was the policy of maintaining the status quo because Saddam was so weakened and powerless, that leaning further on him was not necessary. This is still RUMMYISFROSTED's contention. Even Dean came to disagree with this silly position.

[TLM]

132. What do you not comprehend about containment not being invasion?

"Containment was the policy of maintaining the status quo because Saddam was so weakened and powerless, that leaning further on him was not necessary. This is still RUMMYISFROSTED's contention. Even Dean came to disagree with this silly position."

Containment was the policy of keeping saddam CONTAINED within IRaq, limiting his power and influence to within IRaq and keeping him basicaly pinned down.

Containment did not mean invasion and take over. What is so hard to understand about that?


"Kerry opposed regime change."



He sure has a funny way of showing it.


"Kerry said that the only reason for unilateral invasion was an imminent threat - and said there WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT."


Yet he voted for the war resolution.


"The only reason for multilateral invasion was the exhaustion of peaceful, diplomatic means."

And he voted to give Bush sole authority to determine when peaceful means had been exhausted.

[killbotfactory]

117. I disagree with that.

We always had the threat of force to lie back on, since we always had forces in the area. What Bush did, and what Kerry supported, was to throw a lot of accusations at Iraq without substantiating anything, moved an army into the area under the guise of using a threat of force to get Saddam to "comply" (what was he violating, again?), and then when all the forces were in place he abandoned the UN approach and invaded. It was bullshit from start to finish.

You can't threaten force without evidence. Bush had none, just a lot of inneundo and false allegations.

[DrFunkenstein]

140. Does Anyone Agree With That?

"You can't threaten force without evidence."

Saddam's record of miscalculation is the evidence. The issue was never imminent threat, despite Dean's gyrations.

"What Bush did, and what Kerry supported, was to throw a lot of accusations at Iraq without substantiating anything..."

Where is your evidence that Kerry supported the accusations? If Kerry supported Bush's claims, then we would actually have an imminent threat. Please supply a link.

(Don't give me "his vote was his support.")

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. That's funny.

I would contend that you're "not on the same boat" with Kerry. You have said that you marched in the Iraq War protests. Sounds like maybe you should reconsider your candidate support. Am I wrong?

And yes, I'm familiar with the Dean quotes; much more consistent than Kerry. I know you are familiar with them, so I won't bother fetching them.

[DrFunkenstein]

116. You Have Been Listening To Dean Spin For Too Long

Kerry was never pro-war. His position has always been that we should go to war because we have to, not because we want to - and we did not have to in Iraq.

Just because I opposed the rush to war doesn't mean I have to be Dean's monkey, especially since his foreign policy agenda is so weak.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

129. Question: Did we have to?(Go to war)

Dean, a foreign policy nobody according to you, said that Chimp hadn't made the case for war. Kerry, a foreign policy know-it-all according to you, said that Chimp could go to war anytime he deemed necessary.


There's experience and there is common sense. I'll go with common sense.

[Starpass]

70. There are more votes coming on Iraq--let's see where Howard stands

Now come the appropriations bills that all these Congressmen (the guys who actually have to make the decisions) are going to have presented to them in the coming days...the financing of the Iraq mess. Is Howard going to jump up and scream "not one more dime for this filthy occupation/war" or is he going to join others who insist that the UN and others must get involved and share power with US (and that's the position of most of the Dems..if not all)?----but even though the other Dems in Congress want Bush to stop this stupid shit and start sharing power so we can get this monkey off our back, they also have to decide right here and now whether to keep funding it until (don't hold your breath) that situation occurs. What will Howard advise them to do with their vote-----or will he just keep screaming "UN, UN" and not deal with the immediate problem and criticize every Dem who has to appropriate money to try to keep Iraq from total meltdown???????? Let's let Howard show us the way to the Promise Land.

[DrFunkenstein]

85. Dean Is Not Anti-War

His position is almost exactly the same as Kerry's straight down the line. But Dean is spinning it whichever way is most useful. "No imminent threat" for the anti-war crowds, "Saddam is evil and needed to be disarmed" for the general audiences. He uses the IWR vote to silence the other candidates and conceal the fact that he has no actual differences with Kerry. He's a politician gaming the people, just like the rest.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

104. The difference

is that Kerry voted the safe vote, while Dean risked political death by speaking out at a time when invading Iraq was popular, because Dean knew it to be wrong. Kerry was too afraid of losing his job to speak out (vote correctly). That's the difference that matters, IMO.

[Cha]

107. There's a big Difference but the kerry spokespeople obviously

don't get and are trying to spin the shyte out it!

[TLM]

122. Man you are really trying to shift focus...

"His position is almost exactly the same as Kerry's straight down the line."

No it isn't... Dean was against invasion, against regime change, and against the US take over. Dean supported containment and disarming Saddam through the UN.

Kerry enthusiastically supported invasion, regime change, and the take over.



"But Dean is spinning it whichever way is most useful. "No imminent threat" for the anti-war crowds, "Saddam is evil and needed to be disarmed" for the general audiences."

Bullshit... he is saying the same thing to both audiences. That Saddam was a bad guy and we are probably better off without him, however there was no excuse for the invasion and take over of another nation without the UN's support and in violation of international law.

And stop trying to act as if disarming is the same as invasion and take over, because it isn't. Disarming was going just fine with inspectors... and use of force for disarming means bombing a weapons site, not taking over the fucking country.

Do you understand the difference?


"He uses the IWR vote to silence the other candidates and conceal the fact that he has no actual differences with Kerry. He's a politician gaming the people, just like the rest."

His views are not the same as Kerry's, no matter how many times you repeat the lie. And the reason Dean has so much more support than Kerry is that Dean is calling other dems on issue like voting to support Bush war, the patriot act, and no child left behind.

[TLM]

118. Way to take responsibility off those in congress...

and slap it on Dr. Dean.

Dean has already been clear that we need the UN involved, not just to keep the US from being seen as an imperialist occupying force, but also because there’s no way we can afford to pay the bill for this war. He was saying this back in February.

[RichM]

82. On MTP, Kerry failed to even mention the following crucial points --

- The war was planned by PNAC & its immediate forerunners, as far back as 1992.
- The media blitz about "WMD" and the terrible imminent "threat" Saddam posed to the US was a total & deliberate fabrication from start to finish.
- The complete absence of WMD, in the aftermath of the war, is nothing less than a national disgrace -- which should be spoken of as "criminal," not as an "error in judgement," as "poor planning by the administration," nor as a "lacking exit strategy."
- The purpose of the war was seizing control of the oil, & placing hundreds of thousands of US troops in the Middle East.
- The feel-good fluff being fed to the public about "building democracy" in Iraq is a disgraceful contemptuous lie with no substance to it, other than Public Relations.
- A secondary but still vital objective of the war was the opportunity it offered to funnel "no-bid" government contracts worth many billions of dollars to Bush cronies such as Halliburton and Bechtel.

Refusal to wade into any of these issues in a full hour of national TV is confining criticism of the war to the relatively small change of tactics, planning, & "unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way," rather than exposing it for the criminal enterprise that it is. It's not the "planning" that's so wrong, it's the massive lying and plundering -- both of Iraq's oil, & of the billions in taxpayer money that flows to GOP allies. By refusing to mention the no-bid contracts, etc, Kerry is refusing to paint Bush as "criminal," & instead merely paints him as a poor planner. There's a big difference between a lying thieving gangster/war criminal, and a poor planner.

Kerry is a fine senator with a good progressive record on domestic issues. However, his Iraq vote relied on "trusting" the Bush/Cheney cabal. If "trusting" the cabal not to abuse their authority is the main safeguard against a proposed criminal use of military force, one has badly misplaced one's trust.

[DrFunkenstein]

90. Why Isn't Noam Chomsky President?

Perhaps you should focus your energy on Dean's prostration to AIPAC and Sharon. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth checking out!

Did I mention that Kerry said at every stage that the issue was disarmament, and that no case could be made for an imminent threat. Kerry opposed pre-emption, regime change, and unilateral invasion. The abscence of WMDs DOES NOT affect the need for truly unfettered inspections.

I am sorry if that is the position Dean is currently holding, because that would make him quite hypocritical - and you could be sure that Russert would pull up some nice quotes next time around.

[CWebster]

92. As if Kerry is any different

when he tap dances for AIPAC.

[DrFunkenstein]

114. Dean Took A Trip To Israel On AIPAC's Dime To Kiss Sharon's Ass

He even promised Sharon to QUADRUPLE the amount of military aid from $1 billion to $4 billion.

Kerry, on the other hand, supports parallel concessions and vows to fight extremists ON BOTH SIDES. Dean only sees extremists on ONE SIDE.

Dean supports a two-state solution, but then again so does Bush. Considering this is a central issue on the war on terrorism, can we really trust Dean at the helm?

I would much prefer someone interested in stabilizing the region than someone willing to plunge the situation into further turmoil to placate some lobbyists.

[CWebster]

121. Look, you want me to dig up crap?

A trip to Google is all it takes.

http://leb.net/~bcome/congress/kerry.html

Not one of them is clean on Israel. Disgusting as it is, it would be political suicide.

[TLM]

135. THat is a flat out lie...

"Kerry, on the other hand, supports parallel concessions and vows to fight extremists ON BOTH SIDES. Dean only sees extremists on ONE SIDE."


That's bullshit, I have personaly seen Dean say that there are extreamists on both side who do not want there to be a lasting peace.

Can you site this one-side quote?

[Walt Starr]

93. But then he turned around andd gave carte blanche to a maniac

thus enabling Whistle Ass to get his war on.

An no amount of spinning will wash the blood from his hands.

Out, DAMN SPOT, OUT I SAY!

[Cha]

110. There you go again trying to hide from what kerry has done by

bringing up Dean!

[ibegurpard]

119. YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT!

So why the hell do you keep bringing it up? Do you enjoy getting beat up? Why don't you try not bringing it up and ignoring people who do and then maybe, just maybe, people might start easing up on it and looking at Kerry BEYOND that INDEFENSIBLE action.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

134. Can you not see that you are perpetuating by this and several

other threads recently? Why not just let it be and swat down the unwarranted criticisms when they come up? Why start a thread about the very topic that pisses you when you know full well that it's going to attract the very people who are pissed off at Kerry?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[cosmicdot]

123. Is Sen. Kerry calling for more spending in Iraq? more troops?

I thought I saw where he, like Sen. McCain, called for more troops ... for sure, more money ...

"Senator Kerry continues to make the case that greater international involvement is necessary if we are to win the peace as effectively as our troops won the war."

Does Sen. Kerry believe the invasion of Iraq was a "war", and that Bush won it, i.e. Mission Accomplished?

I don't understand why we should expand a problem created by Americans by lobbying involvement of the world community which disapproved of it to begin with - an action, likely, a crime against humanity

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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