This is why I support Kerry and why you should too.

[cindyw]

People often ask why I support Kerry. They often ask why he supported Bush on the Iraq war. I say he did not. They rightly point out that he voted for the IWR. I say, yes but there was always a third way to deal with Saddam. Rarely in the media or anywhere else have I heard the argument made successfully against Bush when he says something like, "well we had no choice but to invade. We couldn't let Saddam get away with possible WMD". Repubs always win that discussion because it plays on frightening "what ifs".

Yesterday Kerry made that argument against Repubs well. Even if you do not support Kerry, you should use this quote when arguing with your Repub friends in order to make them understand why you did not support "doing nothing".

If you want to understand Kerry's foreign policy stand, this will tell you. This is why I support him.

Kucinich supporters will like this too.

"Americans deserve better than a false choice
between force without diplomacy and diplomacy
without force. We need to take the third path in
foreign policy – not a hard unilateralism or a
soft isolationism – but a bold, progressive
internationalism – backed by undoubted military
might – that commits America to lead in the cause
of human liberty and prosperity. If Democrats do not stand
for making America safer, stronger, and more
secure, we won't win back the White House – and we
won't deserve to."
-- John Kerry, December 16, 2003

[blm]

1. Progressive internationalism means dealing with the CAUSES of terrorism

and global warming and environmental racism and poverty and dealing with healthcare on an INTERNATIONAL scale.

[demnan]

2. I do agree that supporting the resolution

to allow a President the powers to go into Iraq is not the same as planning and carrying out a war yourself. However I still maintain that Kerry should have opposed that resolution based on what we know now. There were posts this morning here and on Buzzflash that indicated that Senators were told Iraq had the means to attack the U.S. so it's understandable that Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt may have felt it was necessary, based on information provided them, to give Bush those powers.

If so, Kerry is in a unique position to tell us whether or not he was misled by the Administration. I haven't heard him say anything directly to this. I look forward to any of the Legislators, not just the ones running for President, and not just the Democrats, to open up and let us know exactly how and why they became pursuaded to go to war.

[blm]

16. You're way behind. Kerry said Bush misled them in June, and called for

an investigation into Iraq intel in July, around the same time that Joe Wilson (Kerry team member) put out that column about the false intel claim.

THAT was Kerry working behind the scenes and out front to bring down Bush's credibility. Too bad he doesn't get credit for it.

[jwb48]

20. Right and Now He Only works hard to bring down Dean

Behavior I have grown very tired of.

[blm]

24. I was tired of Dean working to bring down Kerry with his lies

and distortions. He attacked Kerry on Jan. 23 and continued even while Kerry was recovering from cancer surgery and off the campaign trail. The press LOVED Dean attacking the other candidates and the Dem party and helped him make a nam efor himself.

I wearied of those BULLSHIT attacks from Dean within a week of him launching them.

I weary of lying Deanies who spread the propaganda to new voters that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider" and "Bushlite"....

I weary of your sanctimonious weariness with reciprocation well deserved.

[MaineDem]

3. Second place in Iowa

I don't have a link but I was just notified that Kerry has moved into a second place tie in Iowa. A very good sign!

[La_Serpiente]

4. The poll hasn't been released yet

But CalProf said that it will be released in the BostonGlobe soon.

Here is the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=926284

But I would wait until it is released. Plus, CalProf is a new user, so there is no telling what.

[MaineDem]

7. Thanks, I'll check out that thread

I got the memo an hour or so ago with the new numbers.

[Nadienne]

5. I like the quote

and I almost agree...

What makes me frown is the "backed by undoubted military might" part. Might does not make right. Isn't there a better way?

[cindyw]

8. There is nothing really wrong with undoubted military might.

The problem is when you have a leader like Bush. The reason undoubted might works is that it deters anyone from attacking you. Bush often wins this argument because he echos this same idea to convince people that we have to have a show of force in the middle east. Bush f's up in that he uses that force unilaterallyand without diplomacy. His "show of force", rather than deterring attack, leads to an attitude of "we will be attacked no matter what, so why not fight to the death'.

Kerry is talking about a "don't tread on me" kind of military might. That is one more in line with last resort war (the best example of that is WWII) He sees that America can become a benevolent force rather than a destructive force.

I hope that makes clear how this differs from the undoubted military might that Bush has given us.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Thumbs-up on your headline, cindyw.

I hope we'll see more threads like this for the various candidates instead of the "so-and-so can't win" threads.

[ErasureAcer]

9. Kerry has got to be a moron

for giving Bush the power to wage pre-emptive war.

Morons shouldn't be in the white house.

[cindyw]

12. Thank you for that high minded response.

The moron in the White House though is Bush. Let's keep that straight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I used to volunteer for JK

I did some work for him early in the campaign. You know, when he was on the radar. Now, he hasn't done a damn thing to keep himself on the map. He might as well be invisible. He has to do something drastic, something bold, or he will remain invisible through the primaries.

[MaineDem]

11. His numbers are going up

So he can't be totally invisible.

I agree that his message needs to get out better. Things are improving.

[cindyw]

13. An unexpected win in Iowa will take care of that.

Have faith that the best man for the job will win.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Kerry won't win IA, NH, SC

he'll be finished by SC.

Hawkeye-X

[sandnsea]

18. Iowans caucus

Caucuses mean discussion. Discussion means the truth will come out. And if the debate is anything like it is on DU, the Deanie's will quickly crumble into a group of name callers and that will be that. I have every confidence Kerry will win Iowa.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. I'm thinking that will happen too.

The caucus represents Kerry's best chance. A face to face dialogue with Dean supporters should find Kerry coming out the better.

[loyalsister]

15. The point conveniently overlooked

about the IWR is that it wasn't just a pice of legislation. It was a public relations ploy. Does anyone not remember that Bush wanted to go to war without consulting congress AT ALL? He was pushed into it after getting some bad press on it. When they gave an approval of ANYTHING related to his preemptive agenda, it was very very clear that they were giving a blank check for war. Leaving out that context is dishonest. Kerry constantly does it, though. He must be hoping we have all forgotten. They may have been misled about what Sadaam had, and I believe that they probably were. I would much rather hear that admission than his lame justifications. The bottom line is, they new Bush is a war hungry maniac, and they knew they were giving him a blank check.

[sandnsea]

17. The bad press from Kerry

He has pushed this Administration at every turn. I still wonder what path we would be on if Kerry hadn't had prostate cancer and could have pushed more strongly in February and March. We'll never know.

July 2002
"Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.

"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."

Kerry also questioned the tough message directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accused by Bush of belonging to an "axis of evil" and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush has said he will use all available tools to unseat the Iraqi leader.

"The rhetoric has been a huge mistake, the rhetoric is way ahead of the possibilities," Kerry said. "Frankly, that just makes us look silly and strengthens him to some degree."
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm

[loyalsister]

19. And yet

with full knowledge that Bush is indeed a sociopathic war monger, and that the IWR was a PR ploy, he issued the blank check. But, expects intelligent people to believe differently. Some people might think his motivations are that he is a PNACer, but I actually think he was probably fooled.

[sandnsea]

22. He forced Bush to the UN

And after doing that, he gave his vote as his part of that negotiation. He kept his part of the deal. That's what he did. And he certainly was not fooled, he had to make a choice between two horrible situations. Bush and his PNAC, Saddam and his WMD. Even Dennis Kucinich said Saddam was a threat and inspectors needed to be in the country. The vote accomplished that. Bush screwed it up afterwards. That is what happened.

[JohnKleeb]

21. Thanks

I dont support Kerry, but I like the man and his postions, I still dont understand the IWR vote but I won't let that take away the good qualities, the senator has. BTW I envy the Robert Kennedy Jr endorsement still :D. I say you're right in that Kerry wanted a third way, that is he wasnt totally opposed or totally for. Kerry has my support should he be the nominee, and as of today if my candiate drops out. He is my second choice.

[Martin Eden]

23. Kerry's statement is long on sweeping rhetoric...

...and short on specifics.

Sure, who can disagree with what he said? But how does that translate into his vote for the IWR?

I've heard his explanation that he made the mistake to take Bush at his word that he wouldn't go in without UN authorization, but IMO it was pretty naive to trust this neocon administration, considering they had been salivating to invade Iraq for years.

[sandnsea]

25. Should he have been against Afghanistan?

Should Bush hating have affectd that decision? Senators have to make decisions based on all the facts, not hating the President. He had to choose between Bush & PNAC and Saddam & WMD. That's all the info he had in October to base a decision. He chose to get the inspectors back in Iraq. He decided that the threat of WMD, in the short term, was more dangerous than the PNAC agenda. It's a reasonable decision, I don't know why so many people let their hatred of Bush lead them to the conclusion that Saddam was more trust-worthy than Bush.

[Martin Eden]

27. Apples, oranges, and Afghanistan

Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different issues. The 1st was an intervention against a country that harbored the 9/11 terrorist organization, and the 2nd had no relation to the events of 9/11, except that it enabled the neocons to implement their pre-existing foreign agenda.

I said that Kerry should not have trusted Bush, and Kerry himself has admitted it was a mistake to do so. I'm sure most senators, including Kerry, based their decision on what they thought were "all the facts". However, these turned out to be "all the lies". Senators who voted against the war showed their good judgement, not their "hatred" of Bush.

You are buying into the propaganda that those who disagree with or criticize the president do so out of some unreasoning blind hatred.

And a vote against the war was not a case of trusting Saddam more than Bush. This is like saying that disagreeing with one means agreeing with the other. Is it not possible that neither were trustworthy? Have not events borne that out?

Before the war, I was fully aware that PNAC was agitating for this Iraqi invasion years before Bush took office. I also knew that we supported Saddam in the 80's because he was (and always remained) a bastion againmst Islamic radicalism. I knew the CIA had concluded Saddam would not give WMD to al Qaeda unless he faced destruction and had nothing to lose. Also public knowledge was the fact that Saddam didn't use WMD against us in the first gulf war and that he hadn't perpetrated any terrorist attacks against America during the 12 years of sanctions.

He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but how many attacks against Israel used WMD? Zero. Know why? Because Israel has the best military in the region and a nuclear deterrent. Saddam was an evil tyrant bent on power and survival. He knew he was a dead man if he attacked us. He was thoroughly deterred and contained.

Kerry should have known all these things as well. There was no dire and imminent threat. Vital anti-terrorist resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and now the Taliban and al Qaeda are making a comeback there. The war in Iraq has increased the Islamic world's hatred of America and is breeding more terrorism. The occupation of Iraq is a nearly impossible mission of trying to control rival factions that are very unlikely to come together in a stable democracy.

All of this was forseeable and predicted by the best experts on the region. If Kerry didn't know it, then his foreign policy credentials are much less than advertised.

[sandnsea]

29. Placing trust is the same

You can't just kneejerk against Bush and ignore everything else.

There were many people saying Afghanistan was just a war about the oil pipeline. Bush screwed up the Tora Bora operation. Bush has made Afghanistan as big a mess as before we went in. If Kerry suspected Bush might mess that up, should he have voted against the Afghanistan war? On suspicions?

Iraq is exactly the same. Trust Bush to handle the diplomacy correctly or trust that Saddam wasn't building weapons, wasn't funding Palestinian terrorists, and wouldn't join terrorists against America if he could figure out a way to do it.

In October 2002, if you could shoot Bush or shoot Saddam, which one would it be?

[diamondsoul]

30. Freaky!

That's exactly the argument I would have made, if you hadn't beaten me to it!:toast:

The circumstances with the resolution to allow force in response to 9/11 were actually even WORSE than the options with Iraq, yet nobody has EVER criticised Dennis Kucinich for voting in favor of it.

Think about it for a minute, the resolution that authorized military response to 9/11 didn't specify any country! Bush could have picked one out of a hat for all we know! And still we plopped that authority in his lap as if it was nothing, and nobody complains. Senator Kerry casts a vote based on two options with a clear target laid out and suddenly he's a baaaaaad man. Please.:eyes:

[sandnsea]

34. Well thank you!!

I just don't understand why he is being picked out of a hat to be beat up on with this vote. It's just crazy. No other candidate has to pass this litmus test the way Kerry does. I've said so many times, Hillary polls better than any of them, still, and she voted for the IWR. It's a phony issue for the most part and I just do not understand.

[Martin Eden]

32. Your logic defeats itself

If a vote against war in Iraq was nothing more than knee-jerk against Bush, how do you explain Congressmen who voted for authority to invade Afghanistan and against war in Iraq?

Did they trust Bush, then learn to mistrust him? Or is it just possible that they were able to distinguish between two completely different countries and circumstances?

Not every decision is about Bush and whether he's trustworthy, but that's the way you characterize it, which is knee-jerk logic in itself.

I wouldn't have shot Bush in 2002 because that would put Cheney in charge, and he's more dangerous because he's much smarter than Bush.

I would have gladly shot Hussein, even though that would have put his sons in charge -- but there would still have been the possibility of a coup against them.

But of course the assassination of one man is not the same as invading his country and killing thousands, which I would not have done.

As for Afghanistan, there was no denying the Taliban were protecting al Qaeda terrorist camps. And Iraq -- refer to my previous post.

Your statement that Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same is as logical as the rest of your argument.

[sandnsea]

33. Just the trust

Why is it okay to trust Bush in one instance and not the other. That's the only comparison between the two that I'm trying to make.

Why is it wrong for Kerry to trust Bush to handle Iraq correctly? What did in fact change from Afghanistan about Bush himself? Nothing. Same guy, same neocons, etc.

The choice was continue with the sanctions that were hurting the Iraqi people and causing anger in the ME; or confront Saddam and handle the situation. Kucinch supported diplomacy to accomplish the first. Kerry thought the opportunity for diplomacy without threat of force had passed. There isn't that much of a difference in anybody's view of Saddam or the potential threat he posed.

So why is it one candidate is picked out of all the rest to be beat up on about a vote? Some say he should apologize for the vote and all would be well. But then they say he was duped and shouldn't be President because of it. It just doesn't matter, there's always somebody there to beat him over the head about this vote, from every angle possible. I just don't understand it.

And I really would like to know, based on the two people alone, putting aside who would take their place; who would you shoot to make the people of the world safer, Bush or Saddam?

[Martin Eden]

39. You offer false choices

It's not merely a matter of trust Bush or don't trust Bush -- it's a matter of exercising judgement. Kerry's speech offers a third way between diplomacy and military action; the concept of trust/don't trust Bush does not.

Shoot Bush or Saddam?
This is like the choice Bush offered to the world:
"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".

Let's be clear that we can disagree with the president and still oppose terrorism.

and I thoroughly disagree with your statement:
There isn't that much of a difference in anybody's view of Saddam or the potential threat he posed.

Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam was allied with al Qaeda and would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, or that he was a madman and would somehow fire missiles at America even though this would obviously be suicide on his part. There is a HUGE difference between those who still believe these discredited assertions and those who have a more realistic view of the potential threat posed by Saddam.

I agree the situation had to be resolved or changed, because the sanctions were killing thousands of Iraqi children and doing little to dislodge their dictator.

And I don't doubt that Kerry does not support the way Bush went about changing the situation. I'm merely stating my opinion that he showed poor judgement in voting to give Bush that power.

Does this disqualify Kerry from gaining my support? Not at all -- as I said before, I may yet vote for him in the primary.

Let's remember what started this debate -- the assertion that I should vote for Kerry because of his breif statement at the beginning of this thread.

I'm sure Kerry has much more to offer than that, but that assertion is what I've been debating here .. and the arguments in the subsequent posts.

[cindyw]

26. Why is it that we like eloquent words by FDR, Kennedy, King, Lincoln

and the founding fathers, but when someone says things today they are considered sweeping rhetoric and now dumb enough for the general public.

Let me translate this very specific and wonderful vision:

1. The only choices we were given by Bush's was invade Iraq or do nothing. There must be a third way.

2. Progressive values in foreign policy while still maintaining a don't tread on me stance.

3.If Dems do not stand for fighting a real war on terror and protecting our families, we will lose to Bush and do not deserve the White House.

[Martin Eden]

28. 1, 2, and 3

you wrote:

1. The only choices we were given by Bush's was invade Iraq or do nothing. There must be a third way.

Doing nothing implies doing nothing in regards to terrorism. Let's remember that invading Iraq did not strike a blow at terrorism -- it has made it worse. Kerry didn't choose a third way -- he chose the first and the worst.

2. Progressive values in foreign policy while still maintaining a don't tread on me stance.

I don't disagree with Kerry's statement, but where does it postulate "progressive values"?

3.If Dems do not stand for fighting a real war on terror and protecting our families, we will lose to Bush and do not deserve the White House.

How do you fight a real "war on terror"? By spreading more terror with our "shock and awe" military might, and creating more enemies with every bomb and bullet that causes more collateral damage?

Fighting terror with more terror is hardly a progressive value. Nor is it a prudent policy. The real battle is for hearts and minds, and the war in Iraq is a major defeat on that battlefront.

This is not protecting our families -- it is endangering them by creating more would-be assassins and draining our treasury of the funds we need for homeland defense and a healthy economy.

The military solution Kerry voted for is a blunt instrument that treats the symptoms rather than the cause, and it can create more damage than healing.

True progressive values would focus on repairing the damage done to our relations with the rest of the world, and seeking cooperative solutions to the economic and political injustice that provides fertile ground for terrorism.

This is not to say that we shouldn't have a powerful military ready to take any action that is vital to our national security; it is to say that we grow stronger with every population in whom we inspire trust and friendship rather than fear and resentment.

And I am not saying that John Kerry will not implement a foreign policy with these goals in mind. As a matter of fact, I have not decided who will get my primary vote -- and I have not ruled out John Kerry. His credentials as a liberal Democrat are as good or better than the other major contenders (though not nearly as good as Kucinich) and his gravitas in the Senate is unmatched by any candidate. He may very well have the best chance to unseat Bush -- which is paramount in my considerations.

But his recent sweeping rhetoric, nice as it sounds, is not nearly enough to convince me he deserves my vote. And, given the current state of world and national affairs, it doesn't rise to the heights of the great statesmen with whom Kerry would like to be compared.

[cindyw]

38. You clearly know nothing of Kerry. Youmust be one of those people

Who confuse supporting IWR with supporting the invasion. I think that point has already been decided on this site. I think you should educate yourself about Kerry before you talk about him. I could have put Bush in the stead of Kerry in your comments and they would have been more appropriate.

Kerry wrote a book about what a real war on terrorism would mean. Shock and awe are not part of that. Kerry's comments are also about responding to the confusion Bush creates among the people.

[Martin Eden]

40. Your point is very well taken.

I got caught up in a debate in which I was opposing the war as it was waged by Bush -- not the policy that Kerry would have implemented IF he had been president.

Mea culpa.

I was responding to the original post and what I considered to be weak and fallacious arguments -- not Kerry's arguments or his full views on foreign policy.

Like many who protested the war before it was launched, I find it very difficult to side with any representative or senator who abdicated their Constitutional responsibility in matters of war to an intellectually weak president inexperienced in foreign policy who was surrounded by neoconservative radical hawks with a known agenda.

I have taken your suggestion, and educated myself by reading two major foreign policy speeches delivered this month. If the original post had backed up Kerry's brief "sweeping rhetoric" with a link to greater substance, it would have been much more persuasive.

As it is, I'll let the candidates do the persuading themselves:

Howard Dean’s foreign policy speech:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10993

John Kerry’s foreign policy speech:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

I was impressed when I read Dean's speech. It assuaged some (but not all) of the concerns I have about him.

However, in my opinion, Kerry's speech blew his away. His grasp of the issues, his articulation, and his specific policy initiatives demonstrate an understanding and a vision that are an essential qualification for national leadership.

It's still difficult for me to reconcile Kerry's IWR vote with the wisdom displayed in this speech. I remain convinced he erred tragically. But I am willing to drop it as a litmus test.

Our nation needs to heal and to move forward -- and this holds true for the Democratic Party as well. In the future, I will keep that in mind.

[cindyw]

41. Well I may have not swayed your decision, but every time someone is

willing to do research in a discussion, I have a little more faith in the American people. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

42. Weigh the whole person

That's all any Kerry supporter would ever ask.

After I read several foreign policy speeches, did some research on Iraq in general going back to 1997, learned that he'd been writing on terrorism and international crime since 1997; I just decided I trust his reasons for voting on the IWR.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Using the word "you should"

in any sentence, regardless of subject, is not a good idea. I haven't read the responses but I can only guess what they say. Did it accomplish what you intended? My bet is no, it didn't.

[helleborient]

36. Kerry's campaign has been full of "shoulds"

I like to make up my own mind and not be told what to do by those who claim to be more knowledgeable than others...and apparently most other Democrats like to make their own mind up as well...Kerry at 4% in the latest CBS News national poll.

[cindyw]

37. fine, add I think you should if you like.

Something I say has no bearing on the Kerry campaign. Plus, I don't think you should be so indignant. I spend half my day on the Kerry forum listening to Dean supporters tell me why I should support Dean.

Yes it did accomplish. It got my message out.

[WiseMen]

43. Kerry has been consistent on this 3rd way approach for 15+ years