Media won't report: Kerry position on Iraq in line with American public.

[blm]

MWO article at Atrios' blog from Sept. 9:

The media should stop pretending they don't understand Senator Kerry's nuanced position on the Iraq resolution and subsequent invasion. They do.
What's more, so do the vast majority if Americans, including the more "impressionable" segment Kerry detractors hope to convince he's a "waffler."

The voting public will understand Senator Kerry's explanation because their view has evolved in precisely the same way. There was a surge of public support for the invasion when the invasion became an inevitability, followed by increasingly expressed doubts and criticisms. When Senator Kerry says he believed the resolution was necessary for the US to negotiate from a position of strength, people will get it. Despite the willful obtuseness of his critics, context matters, and any voter can easily discern the difference between actions such as voting for a resolution out of "statesmanship" and strategy (or voicing support to pollsters during the invasion) - and "flip flopping."

What's more, Kerry is on record as voicing conditions for an invasion similar to those voiced by the public.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Kerry's vote in favor of the Iraq resolution would not a liability in a Kerry-Bush matchup, except for tiny minorities who opposed any invasion under any circumstance and will not vote for either as a result, or who believe affording a liar a degree of trust for defensible reasons is worse than being a liar.

In fact, each time Senator Kerry is asked about it he is granted another opportunity to relay to the vast majority of the American people that he, not the unelected fraud, better represents their favored approach to international relations - the one they have repeatedly told pollsters is their preference.
--

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

[phillybri]

1. Amen....

Way to set the record straight....

[HFishbine]

2. Yes But

It's a liability in the primary.

[cosmicdot]

3. so, this should convince others that Kerry follows or leads

us to do what is right, morally, and within the customs of contemporary international order and laws? or that he has, perhaps, good pollsters?

do we justify the ways or the means or byways? history has a final analysis

the American public, from what we're told, thinks Bu$h and Cheney are the bee's knees; and, many of us have been saddened that our elected representatives on the other side of the aisle haven't been against that public "opinion" ... often numbered with "sheeple" ... because we know the dangerous path the BFEE are taking us

[blm]

10. Kerry was LEADING the people with his early statements

urging Bush to go to the UN and went on TV often BEFORE the vote to urge Bush to go to the UN, including an op ed piece in the NYTimes.

Please don't revise history to make your point.

[TLM]

16. You are right Kerry was leading the people with statements like...

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)



Good plan, Mr. Kerry, and since Iraq had no nukes, I won't be voting for you.

[blm]

22. Don't, TLM.

It's YOUR vote. Yours and Bush's.

YOU wanted Bush to have a REAL blank check? Kerry helped get a better deal, and Bush is worse off today because of that deal, whether you are bright enough to GET IT or not.

[TLM]

4. Kerry crew really misjudged the people, and are doing it again.

The american public did not want this war... maybe they wanted a GWI style three day nintendo bombing kind of war, but a long drawn out ground war in Iraq is not what anybody wanted, save for the oil hungry war mongers and their spineless enablers.

"When Senator Kerry says he believed the resolution was necessary for the US to negotiate from a position of strength, people will get it. Despite the willful obtuseness of his critics, context matters, and any voter can easily discern the difference between actions such as voting for a resolution out of "statesmanship" and strategy (or voicing support to pollsters during the invasion) - and "flip flopping."


Kerry was right about one thing...

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry thought being gung ho and pro war would win him support, and when he saw the dem base leave him for someone who was against the war, Kerry flip flopped. All one has to do is look at his quotes from the begining of this year to see it. Kerry was right there using the same lines as the repukes, and flat out saying that Iraq had nukes... not even Bush said iraq HAD nukes, but that they were trying to develop them.


Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

[DrFunkenstein]

At Least Kerry Was Open About His Position With Anti-War Crowds

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to hold a proverbial/literal gun to Saddam's head and say that we will not take you screwing around with UNMOVIC like you did with UNSCOM. We are going to put inspectors on the ground, and give them every chance they need to show that you are in compliance with the resolutions you, yourself, had signed.

Kerry said that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat, but that he posed a long-term threat, given 3 things: 1) his history of major WMD use on urban populations, 2) his proven desire to acquire nuclear weapons, 3) his record of great miscalculation. Saddam had a history as a loose cannon, and after 9/11 we weren't going to tolerate any more loose cannons.

Kerry said that talk of invasion, regime change, and even human rights abuses confused the issue and gave Saddam, amazingly, the moral high ground.

What Kerry did not sign up for was Bush's mind-numbing incompetence at every stage of the game. Bush rushed to war when it was clearly unnecessary, and he had not taken the time to build proper alliances and plan for victory. In fact, the Pentagon was given charge of the endeavor, and they systematically ignored the project the State Department had spent millions on to plan for winning the peace. That's the before.

The during. Rumsfeld incompetently built a doctrine around the "blitzkrieg" theory of warfare - small and fast. This thinned supply lines and provided inadequate artillery support for ground forces. More importantly, it left forces unable to contend with the inevitable chaos of a power vacuum and failed to secure the suspected WMD sites, including a nuclear facility. It was over a month before a significant US inspection team was assembled, which probably explains why o WMDs were found - they were probably taken in that period.

The after. Bush tried to play Scrooge with the Iraqis. Enormous pressure would have been taken off if Bush paid upfront to restore basic infrastructure, maintain hospitals, and fed the Iraqis copious amounts of food - thus making us the "good guys." Secondly, Bush refused to allow the UN to come in and take his war booty. This would have given the occupation legitimacy, just as ceding some power over to the interim government would have.

Kerry was right to forcibly demand Iraq's compliance. But although Bush clearly had a thing for Saddam, there was no way of knowing that he could have screwed things up so desperately. This was an avoidable war, a poorly-run war, and a catastrophic post-war scenario.

Although the vote was ultimately a no-win proposition, I have every confidence that Kerry would have done the right thing every step of the way. I also believe he has the most comprehensive and forward-thinking plan for fighting terrorism and generally making the world a better place to live.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Well

You're citing the very obtuse critics Atrios was talking about.

[TLM]

17. Did Kerry say that or not?

the critics are moot if Kerry said that crap.


Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)



If kerry did not say this, and you have some proof to that effect, please put it forth, I'd like to see it.

[Bandit]

8. Kerry received his information on Iraq from the Administration

He was told in no uncertain terms that Iraq had WMD. So were most in Congress and most in Congress voted to remove those WMD from Iraq. The Administration LIED not Kerry. If Kerry doesn't hammer on this point he won't win the nomination.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. This Is Kerry On The CIA Reports At The Time

"According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution.

Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX.

Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.

Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.

Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material.

If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade.

Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons and his proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction underline the very serious threat that the Iraqi regime could pose to the United States and others in the international community if left unchecked."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

And later in the speech:

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."

[seventhson]

23. Gosh, Doc, Kerry sounds EXACTLY like Bush in SOTU and Powell at UN

This speech is PNAC through and through. Sexed up too for prime time.

Kerry's a scumbucket.

[blm]

24. Thankfully, Kerry and others got the better deal

or Bush would have had a REAL blank check that he wanted to bypass the UN without presenting evidence and would have started bombing Syria and Iran after the fall of Baghdad.

Kerry and a few other lawmakers did their duty and negotiated for the better deal, curtailing Bush's imperialistic plans. They could have done what they knew was popular with their base, or just stayed out of it, but they chose the tougher route of negotiating with a difficult White House and paid for the better deal with their votes.

[TLM]

18. Millions of people and some in congress like Kucinich and Byrd

knew this was bullshit, and were openly saying so.


So this "oh bush lied to me and I didn't know any better" crap won't fly.

If the man is so easily cowed and fooled by a moron like Bush, he has no business in the white house.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. You know...Kerry has PNAC and

Shock and Awe people advising him. No wonder he voted for war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=316123&mesg_id=316123

[DrFunkenstein]

7. You Disappoint Me, GBNC

This is really stretching it. I mean, I could talk about Dean taking the former AIPAC head as the co-chair of his campaign, but you don't see me...

Uh, nevermind.;-)

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. My money is on

Dennis...not Dean.

[blm]

9. The man developed Shock and Awe to use in battle as a strategy

for legitimate wartime use, and not to occupy a country the way Bush used it.

Now, if you care about honesty, you will note that Kerry has long been against air campaigns in war. He doesn't believe in them as military strategy and hasn't for many years.

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. Looks like they used it

in wartime. As for Kerry being against air campaigns...a no vote on the IWR would have given him a stronger case now. He is a war monger and can no longer be trusted.

[Eloriel]

14. They may understand it

But they may also wonder why he wasn't smarter than that -- esp. when there WERE some in Congress who were smarter than that, people who weren't on all those "foreign relations experience" committees that he was on.

Eloriel

[blm]

15. Because HE was a lawmaker stuck negotiating for a BETTER deal

whether you like it or not.

No matter how you spin it to fit YOUR agenda.

[TLM]

19. Funny how you defend Kerry as a poor weak helpless pawn

just "stuck negotiating for a BETTER deal" over the war vote.

Yet in the next breath you'll bash dean for being an evil compromising centrist.


Why wasn't Kucinich stuck when he voted no, or Graham?

Face it BLM, you're the one who is spinning KErry's crass career minded vote for war. He voted for war because he thought it would help him, and he was wrong. Now that he sees all this support going to those who were against the war, suddenly Kerry changed his tune.

[blm]

20. If he didn't negotiate he wouldn't be doing his JOB.

You spin the whole process of the negotiations into something unrecognizable to suit your own agenda.

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. There were some in these very forums that knew better than that.

None of it adds up to a viable excuse to me.

[poskonig]

25. I thought most Americans supported Gulf War I.

Why did *Kerry* oppose it? He's 0-for-2 on Iraq! B-)

[blm]

26. MWO dropout?

.

[Starpass]

27. Stop letting these assholes do a Gore on Kerry

(declartion right up front: I'm Kerry-Clark-Clark Kerry--either one will do). I KNOW. This is deliberate shit. Just like their coverage of Dean is deliberate shit. Bush wants Dean; Bush does NOT want Kerry and whores are doing the delivering. Clark ought to confuse the shit out of them all!!! Kerry cannot get his message out because the media fucks it over. I've heard him speak umpteen times and the point is very, very clear of what the Senate was actually facing with Bush. But hell, chalk one up for the media. They have Dems beliving it too........and Rove smiles.